1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner/defendant/tenant being aggrieved by order dated 4.4.2018 passed by 12th Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2016; whereby, the application under section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 preferred at the instance of respondent/plaintiff/landlord has been allowed and provisional rent has been fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per month.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent/landlord has instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner/tenant. Suit was filed by the respondent on the allegation that disputed property/shop was rented out to the petitioner at monthly rent of Rs. 12,000/- on the basis of lease deed dated 31.5.2011 and petitioner has not paid any amount towards the rent and the disputed shop is required by the respondent for starting business of his son . The allegations of subletting of the shop were also levelled.

3. Petitioner/tenant denied the allegations by filing written statement.

4. It appears that trial Court vide order dated 9.9.2015 had fixed the provisional rent at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Same was challenged by the respondent before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 6750/2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 1.12.2017 with a direction to the trial Court to take into consideration the lease deed dated 31.5.2011 and objection raised by the petitioner in this regard and thereafter, if required conduct an enquiry as per section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short “Act of 1961”) and thereafter fix the provisional rent.

5. It is the submission of the petitioner that trial Court after order dated 1.12.2017 conducted enquiry with regard to veracity of competing claim for fixing the provisional rent.

6. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the order impugned is against the order dated 1.12.2017 passed by this Court whereby clear directions have been given to take into consideration the lease deed and objections of the petitioner and if objections are found tenable then conduct an enquiry as provided under section 13(2) of the Act of 1961. Thus, the enquiry held by the Court was not an enquiry under section 13(2) of the Act of 1961 as directed by this Court. It is further submitted that trial Court failed to appreciate that petitioner is disputing the amount stipulated in the lease deed from very beginning. The provisional rent has to be fixed at a reasonable rate. The Tribunal after prima facie accepting the existence of dispute as to amount of rent, instead of conducting enquiry regarding reasonable provisional rent of the premises under section 13(2) of the Act of 1961, proceeded to enquire into the veracity of both the competing claims regarding the agreed rate of rent and decided that rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month as the agreed rent.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the lease agreement itself indicates that the rate of rent of the premises would be Rs. 12,000/- per month and, therefore, trial Court has rightly fixed the provisional rent at Rs. 12,000/- per month. There is no dispute in respect of rent. A gap crept into para 3 of the lease agreement dated 31.5.2011 is not in respect of rent but is in respect of maintenance amount and same is different from the rent, therefore, trial Court did not err in passing the impugned order after considering the fact situation and the controversy after due enquiry. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. In the earlier round of litigation at the instance of respondent/landlord/plaintiff this Court passed the following directions :

“In view of the aforesaid submissions and the law on the issue, it is apparent that trial Court could not have fixed the provisions rent without embarking an enquiry as provided under section 1