Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 782
1999 (2) J LJ 118
S.C. Pandey, J.
Shyamlal Agrawal and others v. Sardar Gurubachan Singh
Civil Revision No. 401 of 1993; against the order of Shri M.D. Mahilkar, First
Additional District Judge, Raipur, passed in Civil Suit No. 111-A of 1991;
Decided on 7.10.1998.
Mukesh Agrawal for applicants; Y.K. Munshi for non-applicant.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- revision petition -- certified copy of order impugned not filed -- office should check and raise the objection -- counsel/or applicant should be directed to file the certified copy. [Para 4]
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- revision petition -- in held-up cases original record is never called unless directed by Court -- Deputy Registrar is none to call such record. [Para 4]
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- revision petition filed without certified copy -- High Court may still issue show cause notice and decide the case on merits when order impugned is available from record. [Para 5]
(4) Court -- mistake of office -- can he treated as mistake of Court itself -- no mistake of Court can harm any party. [Para 6]
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13(6), 13(1) and 12(1) -- tenant not admitting relationship of landlord and tenant -- has still to deposit rent to have the protection of defence under S. 12(1) -- rent not deposited -- defence under S. 12(1) liable to be struck off -- his general defence would be intact. 1964 JLJ 87 and 1991 JLJ 86 relied on. [Para 6]
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 13(6) -- discretionary power -- is available only to extend the time for deposit of rent -- such power can be exercised if tenancy is admitted -- word "may" does not give power not to strike defence even if no rent is deposited. (1981)3 SCC 486 distinguished. [Para 6]
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(1) and 13(1) -- defence under S. 12(1) -- not available without deposit of rent. [Para 6]
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk && vkf{kIr vkns‘k dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi Qkby ugha dh xbZ && dk;kZy; dks tk¡p djuk pkfg, vkSj vkifRrÙk djuk pkfg, && vkosnd ds dkmUlsy dks izekf.kr izfrfyfi Qkby djus ds fy, fufn"V fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 4
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk && :ds gq, ekeyksa esa ewy vfHkys[k dHkh ugha e¡xok;k tkrk tc rd fd U;k;ky; }kjk funs‘k ugha fn;k tk, && mi&jftLVªkj ,slk vfHkys[k ugah e¡xok ldrkA ¿ iSjk 4
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk] izekf.kr izfrfyfi fcuk Qkby dh xbZ && mPp U;k;ky; fQj Hkh ekeyk fofuf‘pr fd, tkus ds fy, dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh dj ldrk gS tc vkf{kIr vkns‘k vfHkys[k esa miyC/k gSA ¿ iSjk 5
¼4½ U;k;ky; && dk;kZy; dh xyrh && U;k;ky; dh Lo;a dh xyrh ekuh tk ldrh gS && U;k;ky; dh dksbZ xyrh i{kdkj dks dksbZ gkfu ugha igq¡pk ldrhA ¿ iSjk 6
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼6½] 13¼1½ rFkk 12¼1½ && vfHk/kkjh }kjk Hkw&Lokeh rFkk vfHk/kkjh dk laca/k Lohdkj ugah && rc Hkh /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu viuh izfrj{kk dh laj{kk ds fy, HkkM+k fuf{kIr fd;k tkuk gksxk && HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugha fd;k x;k && /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu izfrj{kk dkVh tkus ;ksX; && mldk lkekU; izfrokn lqjf{kr jgsxkA 1964 ts ,y ts 87 rFkk 1991 ts ,y ts 86 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼6½ && oSosfdd ‘kfDr && dsoy HkkM+s ds fu{ksi ds le; esa o`f) djus ds fy, miyC/k gS && ;g ‘kfDr iz;qDr dh tk ldrh gS ;fn vfHk/k`fr Lohdkj dh tkrh gS && ‘‘kCn ^ldrk gS* ls ,slh ‘kfDr izkIr ugha gksrh fd izfrj{kk ugha dkVh tk,] Hkys&gh dksbZ HkkM+k fuf{kIr ugah fd;k x;k gksA ¼1981½3 ,l lh lh 486 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 6
¼7½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ rFkk 13¼1½ && /kkjk 12¼1½ ds v/khu izfrj{kk && HkkM+k fuf{kIr fd, fcuk miyC/k ughaA ¿ iSjk 6
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 1.5.1993, passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 111-A/91, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants against the non-applicant under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act'). It is not in dispute that the non-applicant has not deposited the rent after he was served with notice of demand and, thereafter, with summons. As per Section 13(1) of the 'Act', he was required to deposit the arrears of rent within •one month of receipt of summons. He could also apply for extension of time for deposit of arrears of rent after expiry of one month and having obtained extension, he was required to deposit future rent of each succeeding month by every fifteenth day, The non-applicant did not take any step to deposit the rent and. therefore the applicants filed an application for striking out the defence under Section 13(6) of the Act.
2. The non-applicant opposed this application. In his reply, he stated that he is not the tenant of the applicants. It was claimed that he was not the tenant of the vendor of the applicants. The non-applicant claimed that he was in possession of the suit house by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 18.8.1982 from one Amarjeeth Singh Chhabra for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand), It was further stated that he had paid an advance of Rs. 11.100/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand One Hundred) to Amarjeet Singh Chhabra. The non-applicant further claimed that Amarjeet Singh Chhabra had committed breach of contract and. Therefore, he had tiled Civil Suit No, 21-A/85 for specific performance of contract dated 18.8,1982. For all these reasons, he was not hound to deposit the rent under Section 13(1) of the Act.
3. The trial Court accepted the contention of the non-applicant and refused to stike out the defence, despite the fact the non-applicant did not deposit the rent in the Court nor did he show any desire to deposit the rent.
4. This revision was med on 22.7.1993. This revision was not accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order dated 1.5.1993. The revision was filed within ninety days of the order, therefore, it would be within limitation. When the revision application was med. the office should have checked out and raised an objection that certified copy of the impugned order has not been tiled and directed the counsel for the applicants to file the certified copy. However, the office omitted to note the defect in the revision application. It is further pointed out to me that there is no order of this Court calling for the original record of the Court below. However, the record of the Court below was called on the basis of an order signed by the Deputy Registrar on 1.9.1993. The rules do not provide that Deputy Registrar would himself call for the record of a case. In held-up cases. The original record is never called unless it is directed by the Court. But, right or wrong, the office has called the original record of the case. It is too late in the day to call for an explanation to rind out in what circumstances the original record of the Court below was called. However, the attention of the Additional Registrar (J) is directed to this event so that this practice may not be repeated.
5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant naturally contended that this revision is not maintainable. In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have accepted the contention of learned counsel for the non-applicant, but it appears that by order dated 26.4.1995 a show cause notice was issued to the non-applicant without noticing the defect in the revision application. It appears to this Court that on 26.4.1995 itself, this Court may have overlooked tile defect and issued the show cause notice since the original record was with this Court. This Court has ample power under Section 115 of the CPC 10 issue notice suo motu. That apart, it would be too techn
