Back
1992 Supreme(MP) 688
1993 JLJ 117
R.D. Shukla. J.
Laxminarayan v. M/s. Jambu Dal Mills and others
Civil Revn. No. 152 of 1992; against the order passed by the 5th Additional
Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in Civil Suit No, 110-A of 1989;
Decided on. 21.10.1992,
R.S. Garg for applicant; N.K. Patni for non-applicant.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 14, R. 5 -- framing of additional issue -- point covered by existing issue -- no additional issue need he Famed. [Para 9
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6, R. 17 -- application for amendment rejected previously and rejection upheld in revision by the High Court -- no fresh amendment application can he entertained. [Para 1]
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 13 (4) &: (6) and 12 -- expression "defence against eviction" used in Ss. 13 (4) and 13(6) -- only means defence against eviction resting on Ss. 12 and nothing more -- rate and quantum of rent disputed -- tenant can adduce evidence to rebut the case of plaintiff.
The tenant can well demonstrate that the arrears as claimed are not due when the issues in the suit are tried in those proceedings, the defendant shall get a right to rebut those issues. If this is not permitted the tenant shall have to suffer a decree for certain amounts allegedly due as arrears of rent hut without any opportunity to him to contest that fact in issue. 1964 JLJ 87 and 1991 JLJ 86 relied on. AIR 1989 SC 162 followed. [Paras 15 to20
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 14 fu- 5 & vfrfjDr fook|d fojfpr fd;k tkuk && fcanq fo|eku fook|d esa lekfo"V && vfrfjDr fook|d fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 17 & la‘kks/ku dk vkosnu iwoZ esa [kkfjt fd;k x;k vkSj [kkfjth mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dk;e j[kh xbZ && la‘kks/ku vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13 ¼4½ ,oa ¼6½ rFkk 12 && /kkjk 13 ¼4½ && esa iz;qDr ,oa **csn[kyh ds fo#) izfrj{kk** && dk vFkZ dsoy /kkjk 12 ij vk/kkfjr csn[kyh ds fo#) izfrj{kk gS] vf/kd dqN ugha && HkkMs+ dh nj vkSj ifjek.k fooknxzLr && vfHk/kkjh] izfroknh ds ekeys dk [kaMu djus ds fy, lk{; izLrqr dj ldrk gSA
vfHk/kkjh] fook|dksa ij fopkj fd, tkus dh dk;Zokfg;ksa esa ;g Hkyh Hkk¡fr funf‘kZr dj ldrk gS fd nkok dh xbZ cdk;k ns; ugha gS] izfroknh dks mu fook|dksa dk [kaMu djus dk vf/kdkj izzkIr gksuk gh pkfg,A ;fn ,slk vuqKkr ugha fd;k tkrk gS rc vfHk/kkjh dks fooknxzLr rF; dk izfrokn ds volj fcuk dfFkr :i ls HkkMs+ dh cdk;k dh Hkk¡fr ns; fof‘k"V jde ds fy, fMØh Hkqxruk iMs+xhA 1964 ts ,y ts 87 rFkk 1991 ts ,y ts 86 voyfcrA , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 162 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 15 ls 20À
R.D. Shukla, J. -- 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.4.92 passed in Civil Suit No.110-A/89 whereby the plaintiffs three applications; one, for amendment in the pleading, other for amendment in the issues and the third for examination of rent receipts by an expert have been rejected.
2. The brief history of the case is that plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit in the Court of Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Indore with the assertions that he is the landlord of the suit premises. It is bona fide required by the plaintiff and its partners, that defendant has failed to pay rent @ 2,100/- per month and, therefore, is liable for eviction. It was also asserted that he purchased the suit premises from the heirs of one Shri Hemchandra Mishra on a consideration of Rs. 1,61,000/vide registered deed dated 29.4.87. The suit has been filed on 20.7.89.
3. The defendant denied the assertions of the plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff does not require it for personal need. The defendant denied the relationship of tenant and landlord. It was further asserted that they have never agreed to pay rent @ 2,100/-permonth as he was paying Rs. 350/- per month to previous landlord (Le., predecessor- in- interest of plaintiff).
4. As the defendant did not pay the rent the plaintiff filed an application u/s. 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The Trial Court directed the defendant to deposit the rent (1) 2,100/- per month for the period from 1.10.87 to 31.8.90 by 13.9.90. The defendant failed to pay the rent as directed.
5. Thereafter on the application of the plaintiff the learned Trial Court directed for striking off the defence of defendant vide Order dated 25.1.90.
6. The defendant filed a Revision (C.R. No. 302/90) against the said order.
The same was dismissed vide Order dated 16.12.90 of this Court passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
7. The defendant thereafter filed application for amendment u/s 6, R. 17 C.P.C. The same was also rejecied.
The defendant again filed a C.R. No. 124/91. That Revision has also been rejected vide Order dated 1.4.91 of this Court.
8. The case was fixed for evidence. Meanwhile the defendant prayed for adjournment on the basis of change of advocate. It appears that the defendant was changing the advocates off and on. However, these three applications, as referred to above, were filed thereafter. Learned Trial Judge has rejected those applications. Hence this revision.
9. Now, so far as the application u/o 14, R. 5 C.P.C. is concerned, i.e. with respect to framing of new issues. On perusal of issues it appears that the matter is covered by the Issues already framed. The same has been observed by the Trial Court as well. Learned counsel for the defendant-applicant also did not press this point.
10. Similarly, it appears that the amendment application u/o 6, R. 17 C.P.C. were rejected earlier. C.R. No. 124/91 has also been dismissed and thereafter that has also been finalised. Hence, there is no case for further amendment in the matter.
11. On perusal of record it appears that the prayer of plaintiff with respect to amendment of pleading and amendment in issues were rejected vide Order dated 7.8.91 and the revision against the said order was also dismissed and, therefore, the defendant cannot be allowed to agitate the same by way of new revision again.
12. Learned Trial Judge has allowed the part of the amendment regarding the legal pleading and, therefore, no interference with respect to order regarding amendment of pleading and issues are required.
13. The last and most important contention of the counsel for defendant is that defendant has denied the rate and quantum of the rent. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that despite the striking off the defence the defendant is entitled to contest the quantum of rent and is further entitled to disprove it by adducing evidence. It has also been submitted that the striking off defence would be limited
