B.C. Varma, Ag. C.J. – 1. The petitioners invokes the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.10.89 passed by the District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Revision No. 136 of 1989 (Annexure-A), whereby the learned District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the trial Court's order dated 27.7.1989. The result is that the petitioner-defendant is precluded from leading evidence on the issue of arrears of rent, although evidence was to be led for the limited purpose of contesting the quantum of rent arrears allegedly due and adjustment claimed by him.

2. The suit by the respondent-plaintiff Satish Chandra was for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant, based on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The defence was that there were no arrears of rent due against the petitioner. He claimed adjustment for the amount spent by him on repairs of the premises, for taxes paid, advances made towards rent, expenses of electric fittings, water charges, etc. It was denied that there were any arrears of rent. The proceedings went on and ultimately the petitioner-defend ant-tenant suffered an order under section 13(6) of the Act and his defence against eviction based on ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act now stands terminated. The consequence of this order is that he shall not be able to contest the issues relating to the ground of eviction, although respondent No. 1 plaintiff shall still be required to establish these grounds. As the suit proceeded for trial, the petitioner insisted upon leading evidence to contest the claim for arrears of rent. It may be mentioned that in the suit, besides eviction, claim was also for arrears of rent said to be due to the respondent-plaintiff. This was objected to by the plaintiff-respondent mainly on the ground that the petitioner's defence against eviction stood struck out for non-payment of rent. The trial Court rejected the respondent's contention and permitted the petitioner to contest that issue as to arrears of rent. As stated above, that order of the trial Court has been set aside by the revisional Court, which has sustained the respondent-plaintiff's stand precluded the petitioner from contesting the claim regarding arrears of rent.

3. The scheme of the Accommodation Control Act may be examined. Section 12 of the Act contains a provision stating the grounds on which eviction of a tenant may be claimed, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract. Clause (a) of section 12(1) relates to the tenant's default in payment of rent and provides that eviction may be claimed, if the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him, within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner. Eviction is also permissible under clause (e) of section 12(1), if the accommodation let out for residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family. Sub-section (3) of section 12 provides that no order for eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section. (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 13. Section 13 is a provision giving more facilities and a further opportunity to the tenant to make good the default in payment of arrears of rent as also the amount of rent falling due during the pendency of the suit. Provision is for determination of provisional rent in case the tenant-defendant contests the claim of arrears of rent or rate of monthly rent. It is only when, on fixation of such provisional rent, the tenant fails to make payment or deposit the amount of such rent that the drastic step under section 13(6) may be taken and the 'defence against eviction' be struck out.