IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that repeated defaults in rent payment by a tenant, without timely applications for extension, can lead to eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

ORDER :

1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 54-A/84, judgment and decree dated 18-8-2001 wherein the appeal filed on 9-2-1982 by which the learned First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in C.S. No. 532-A/75, Navalkishore vs. Nekse, judgment and decree dated 12.1.1982 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of tenant from House No. 346/29, Lohia Bazar, Lashkar and payment of arrears of rent.

2. It is not disputed that the suit property was originally rent to Nekse on 1-9-1962 on a rent of Rs. 25/- per month.

3. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and on he basis of their pleadings and evidence adduced, held that the tenant has not encroached upon the additional space besides the area rented out to defendant. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff does not require rented premises for repair or for new construction and, therefore, do not find it bona fide for the same purpose. It further held that rent is due on defendant but on account of the fact that plaintiff did not accept the rent.

4. Learned First Appellate Court, during the hearing of the appeal found that the defendant had committed delay in payment of rent but that was for valid and genuine reasons and as per paragraph 23 and 26 of the appeal judgment, dismissed the application of the appellant under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act dated 3-8-1984 and 1-9-1992 and allowed the application of the respondent/defendant filed under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code on 12-10-1993 and section 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act dated 28-6-2001 and in the ultimate analysis dismissed the appeal.

5. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment of the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and on 21-1-2004, this second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Court below has erred in condoning several defaults in depositing the rent?”

6. The appellant on 3-8-1984 filed an application under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act that in spite of summons of appeal, due rent has not been deposited within one month as the copy of the application was received by the respondent on 3-8-1984. In reply to the above application filed on 15-3-1986, the defendant submitted that he has deposited the rent for the purpose of deciding this appeal. In reply certain entries are more relevant which are reproduced below:

At the bottom of the reply dated 15-3-1986 it is also mentioned that it is not necessary for the respondent to deposit rent during appeal proceeding.

7. By filing an application under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code on 12-10-1993, respondent has submitted that original tenant Nekse expired and his wife Benibai is old and ill and daughters are married, therefore, she could not contact her advocate. On 11-10-1993 she contacted her advocate who told her that defendant has been struck off but it is submitted that she had sent the rent through her son-in-law and accordingly, prayed for condoning the delay in payment of rent.

Respondents have filed following citations in support of their case:

(i) Sudarshan Prasad Pandey vs. Rajaram Shukla, 1972 JLJ 759

(ii) S.S. Harishchandra Jain vs. Capt. Inder Singh Bedi, 1977 JLJ 312

(iii) Dhanbai vs. State of M.P. and Others, 1978 JLJ 879

(iv) Jagdish Kapoor vs. New Education Society, AIR 1968 MP 1

(v) Sharadchand vs. Vishnupant, 1978 JLJ 227

(vi) Manoharlal Gopilal Pande vs. Dr. Abdul Mazid Khan