The Rent Controlling Authority has jurisdiction to fix the standard rent despite the existence of a contractual rent, and the tenant is entitled to contest the arrears of rent claimed in the eviction suit. Striking out the defense of the tenant under Section 13(6) of the Act does not deprive him of the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and address arguments on the basis of the plaintiff's case.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. The appellant-defendant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12-12-1986, passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 59-A of 1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, a Camp Janjgir, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1983, passed in Civil Original Suit No. 82-A of 1980, by the Civil Judge, Class II, Janjgir, has preferred this second appeal against the order of his eviction on the ground of Section 12(l)(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant, pleading that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on monthly rental of Rs. 170/-. The defendant did not pay rent for the period between June, 1977 to May 1978 and, as such, was in arrears. On 19-6-1978, notice of demand was given to the defendant but despite that he did not deposit rent with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was called upon to file civil suit No. 73-A of 1978, which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff under a compromise and the defendant had agreed to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 1-11-1979. The decretal rent amount could be recovered from the defendant only in execution of the decree. The defendant did not pay rent from 1-11-1979 to October 1980 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3. The defendant contended that the earlier compromise was the result of pressure and coercion and the same is not binding on the defendant. He also submitted that the defendant has already instituted proper proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of standard rent and as the defendant was ready and willing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month, the plaintiff with a mala fide intention has filed the suit therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. He admitted service of the demand -notice.

4. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case for eviction under the provisions of Section 12(l)(a) of the Act and accordingly granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant preferred an appeal. The learned first appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal has been filed by the defendant-tenant, which has been admitted on 2-4-1987 on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether the Courts below erred in law in refusing further time to the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent, thereby striking out the defence of the appellant?

5. It was submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the order of the Rent Controlling Authority under which the standard rent was fixed, was challenged by the landlord before the first appellate Court which had set aside the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1987 was filed by the appellant-defendant before this Court and this Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the first appellate Court for reconsideration. It was also contended that when the matter in relation to the standard rent was pending before the competent authority, then, under these circumstances, a decree under the provisions of Section 12(l)(a) could not have been passed or in any case, till final disposal of the proceedings regarding fixation of standard rent, the civil suit ought to have been stayed under the inherent powers of the Court. Replying the above arguments, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in view of the compromise decree, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and the defendant cannot challenge the quantum of rent. It was also contended that the civil Court would be bound by the order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority and so long as there is no final order, the suit could certainly proceed.

6. Section 12 of the Act provides that no suit shall be filed in any civil Court