Sushila Shrivastava vs Nafees Ahmed Qureshi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(MP) 972

2001 (1) JLJ 351
A.K. Mishra, J.
Sushila Shrivastava (Smt.) v. Nafees Ahmed Qureshi and anr.
Second Appeal No. 65 of 1999; against the decree and judgment of
VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, passed in
Civil Appeal No. 24-A of 1996, arising out of decree and judgment passed by
Ku. Renuka Puri, XI Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, in
Civil Suit No. 440A of 1994; Decided on 14.10.2000.

Advocates:
K.L. Mangal for appellant; Vivek Khedkar for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13(1) and 12(1)(a) -- deposit of rent -- cannot be made at any time -- deposit not made in accordance with the provision under S. 13(1) -- delay in deposit not condoned -- eviction cannot be escaped by tenant under S. 12(1)(a). 1996 ITJ 368 relied on. 1988 JLJ 213 and 1994 JLJ 174 held overruled. [Para 7
       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1) -- provision as amended -- applicable to pending appeals also -- tenant is bound to make deposit of rent in appeal -- delay in deposit cannot be condoned without application. 1994 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 132 relied on. [Para 8
       (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1) -- delay in deposit of rent -- no application filed -- no discretion can be invoked. 1997 (1) MPLJ 232 and 1981 JLJ SN 73 distinguished. [Para 10
       (4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(1) (a) and 13(1) -- decree for eviction under 5-. 12(1)(a) -- tenant should deposit rent according to provisions under S. 13(1).
       To avoid the decree under section 12(1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, it is necessary that tenant should deposit the arrears of rent as per sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act. The requirement of section 13 is that the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceedings, or within the month of institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant, as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court may on application made to it, allow in this behalf and thereafter the rent is required to be paid regularly on month to month basis by 15th of each succeeding month. 1991 (II) MPWN 105 relied on. [Para 11
       (5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(1) -- provision under -- applies to appeal as well -- application is necessary for seeking condonation of delay -- justification for exercise of discretion should also be provided. 1993 (I) MPWN 100 relied on. [Para 12
       (6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(5) and 13(1) -- rent not deposited in accordance with S. 13(1) -- provisions of S. 12(5) cannot be availed of. 1997 (I) MPWN 121 relied on. [Para 13
       (7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13(1), 13(2), 12(5) and 12(3) -- tenant not depositing rent -- receipts forged -- provisional rent fixed on application of landlord -- non-determination of rent under S. 13(2) immaterial -- tenant committed default -- not entitled to benefit of. S. 12(5) r.w. S. 12(3). 2000 (2) JLJ 1 (SC) followed. [Para 14
       ¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼1½ rFkk 12¼1½¼d½ && HkkM+s dk fu{ksi && fdlh Hkh le; ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fo{ksi /kkjk 13¼1½ ds v/khu mica/k ds vuqlkj ugha fd;k x;k && fu{ksi esa foyac ekQ ugha fd;k x;k && vfHk/kkjh /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu csn[kyh ls ugha cp ldrkA 1996 ts ,y ts 368 voyafcrA 1988 ts ,y ts 213 rFkk 1994 ts ,y ts 174 myVk x;k vfHkfu/kkZfjrA ¿ iSjk 7
       ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼1½ && ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr mica/k && yafcr vihyksa dks Hkh ykxw gksrk gS && vfHk/kkjh vihy esa HkkM+s dk fu{ksi djus dks ck/; gS && fu{ksi esa foyac vkosnu ds fcuk ekQ ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1994 ¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 132 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 8
       ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼1½ && HkkM+s ds fu{ksi esa foyac && vkosnu Qkby ugha fd;k x;k && foosdkf/kdkj dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA 1997¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 232 rFkk 1981 ts ,y ts ,l ,u 73 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 10
       ¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ rFkk 13¼1½ && /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu csn[kyh dh fMØh && vfHk/kkjh dks /kkjk 13¼1½ ds v/khu mica/kksa ds vuqlkj HkkM+k fuf{kIr djuk pkfg,A
       e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu fMØh ls cpus ds fy, vko‘;d gS fd vfHk/kkjh dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vuqlkj HkkM+s dk cdk;k fuf{kIr djuk pkfg,A /kkjk 13 esa visf{kr gS fd HkkM+k] leu dh fjV dh vFkok vihy ;k fdlh vU; dk;Zokgh dh lwpuk dh rkehy ds ,d ekl ds Hkhrj vFkok vfHk/kkjh }kjk vihy ;k dksbZ vU; dk;Zokgh] tSlh Hkh n‘kk gks] lafLFkr fd, tkus ds ,d ekl ds Hkhrj vFkok ,sls vfrfjDr le; ds Hkhrj HkkM+k fuf{kIr djsxk tks U;k;ky; dks vkosnu fd, tkus ij U;k;ky; }kjk bl ckjs esa vuqKkr fd;k tk,( rRi‘pkr~ izR;sd ijorhZ ekl dh ianzg rkjh[k rd ekfld vk/kkj ij HkkM+k fu;fer :i ls lanÙk fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA 1991 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 105 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11
       ¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼1½ && mica/k && vihy dks Hkh ykxw gksrk gS && foyac dh ekQh pkgus ds fy, vkosnu vko‘;d gS && foosdkf/kdkj ds iz;ksx dk U;k;kSfpR; Hkh fn;k tkuk pkfg,A 1993 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 100 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 12
       ¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼5½ rFkk 13¼1½ && /kkjk 13¼1½ ds vuqlkj HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugha && /kkjk 12¼5½ ds mica/kksa dk Qk;nk ugha fy;k tk ldrkA 1997 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 121 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13
       ¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼1½] 13¼2½] 12¼5½ rFkk 12¼3½ && vfHk/kkjh }kjk HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugha && jlhnsa dwVjfpr && Hkw&Lokeh ds vkosnu ij vuafre HkkM+k fu;r && /kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu HkkM+s dk vuo/kkj.k egRoghu && vfHk/kkjh us O;frØe fd;k && /kkjk 12¼5½ lgifBr /kkjk 12¼3½ ds Qk;ns dk gdnkj ugha gSA 2000 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below. The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking ejectment of the defendant/tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and requirement of the plaintiff for residence has been dismissed. The suit was with respect to house No. 255, ward No. 16, Shinde Ke Chhawani, Lashkar, Gwalior. The plaintiff alleged that defendant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 588/-. Rate of rent was Rs. 50/- per month. Tenancy was oral and commenced from the first day of the month. The plaintiff obtained the house in partition with his father. After the death of the father, plaintiff has been realising the rent. The rent was due from August, 1983 which was not paid inspite of the notice. The plaintiff acquired the house for the purpose of residence. The plaintiff was residing in the said house by paying rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month as tenant. The defendant did not pay the rent within two months of the service of the notice nor handed over the possession, hence the suit was filed. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the plaint allegations and contended that he was not inducted as a tenant by Vishanswarup. He is occupying the suit house at the rate of Rs. 26/- per month. The factum of partition has also been denied. Vishanswarup has however released the rent in December, 1985. Plaintiff does not require the accommodation for residence. The defendant has spent the amount in repair work, of Rs. 3,500/- which he was entitled to get adjusted in the rent. Vishanswarup had filed the suit for requirement which was dismissed on 13.2.1976. Hence mode of partition was resorted to in order to get the defendant evicted from the suit house. Relationship of land-lord and tenant was also disputed by the defendant.

2. Trial Court came to the conclusion that defendant is occupying the suit premises by paying rent at the rate of Rs. 28/- per month. Trial Court dismissed the suit and the appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. However, appellate Court came to the conclusion that rent was due to be paid from August 1, 1983. Dispute under section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was raised which was determined by the trial Court on 10.3.1987 by which it was ordered that rent from October, 1985 be deposited within 20 days and the dispute about the payment of rent from August, 1983 shall be decided at the time of the decision of the case on merits. The appellate Court while deciding the case on merits has held that defendant is in arrears from August, 1983 and accordingly passed the decree of recovery of rent.

3. Present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff on the ground that the rent was not deposited regularly as required under section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the lower appellate Court, after holding that the defendant is in arrears of rent, was justified in refusing to grant decree under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?"

4. Both the parties have also addressed this Court about the default committed, hence the additional substantial question of law is framed. Parties are heard on it, question "whether the defendant has committed default in depositing the rent under section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act."

5. The submissions raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant are threefold. Firstly, the defendant has committed default in depositing the rent. It is submitted that rent from July, 1994 to November, 1994 was paid on 10th of January, 1995. Thus there is serious default committed by the defendant in depositing the rent.

Secondly, the appellate Court decided the dispute finally on merits regarding the arrears and directed the deposit of rent from August, 1983. Thus the rent which ought to have been deposited by the tenant durin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(MP) 972

Cases Referred (10)