1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-tenant has challenged the order of the trial Court dated 6.2.2017 whereby the petitioner's application under section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been decided and the provisional rent of Rs.1,400/- per month has been fixed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that trial Court has committed an error in fixing the provisional rent without directing the parties to file the affidavit and without conducting summary enquiry.

3. As against this, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned order and has submitted that trial Court has duly taken into account all the relevant circumstances while passing the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The impugned order of the trial Court is a well reasoned order. Under section 13(2) of the Act, in case of any dispute about payment of rent, the Court is empowered to fix a reasonable provisional rent. The impugned order reveals that trial Court has duly considered all the relevant circumstances while fixing the provisional rent.

6. Undisputedly the suit premises is a shop. It has been pointed out that suit shop is situated on A.B.Road. The order reflects that suit shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 1995 on the monthly rent of Rs.480/-. The consistent plea of the landlord-plaintiffs in the eviction notice as also in the eviction suit is that the current rent of the suit premises is Rs.1,455/- per month. The trial Court has taken note of fact of increase of rent during course of time and has accordingly fixed the provisional monthly rent of Rs.1,400/-. Considering the nature of the suit accommodation and the use to which it is put in, I am of the opinion that the provisional rent which is fixed by the trial Court is just and proper.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Firm Ganeshan harvilas v. Ramchandrarao [AIR 1971 MP 104], but in that case also it has been held that no hard and fast rule can be formulated for determining the provisional rent and the Court has to apply its own mind and satisfy himself prima facie as to what provisional rent will be reasonable.

8. The impugned order reveals that trial Court has applied its mind while fixing the provisional rent in the present case.

9. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Smt. Meera Kori v. Mohd. Faheem Siddiqui [2008(3) MPJR 12] and Anjanabai v. Shri Ramniwas Mittal [1995 MPACJ 70], but considering the fact that in each case provisional rent is required to be fixed by the trial Court having regard to its own facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on their own facts.

10. Considering the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that trial Court has not committed any patent illegality in fixing the provisional rent and no case for interference in the order of trial Court is made out.

11. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another [(2010)9 SCC 385], while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a Court, or Tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the trial Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.