Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Manish Mehta v. Suresh Chawla
Miscellaneous Petition No. 286 of 2017 with Miscellaneous Petition No. 288 of 2017 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 346 of 2017(Jabalpur); Decided on 13.11.2017.
Praveen Chaturvedi for petitioners; Priyank Khandelwal for respondent.
Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) -- S.13(6) -- defendants inducted as tenants by son of original owner -- plaintiff purchased suit property -- filed eviction suit claiming arrears of rent -- defendants denied tenancy with plaintiff and submitted that there is no arrear of rent as they were regularly paying it to original owner -- also filed counter-suit that sale deed is void and not binding on them -- trial Court allowed application for defence to be struck out on ground of delay of one month in depositing entire rent even for period prior to plaintiff becoming owner -- order striking out defence of tenant is not warranted -- set aside.
Held : In view of the above analysis, the defendants who are running a small shop have deposited the entire arrears of rent and challenged the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. As such, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, order striking out the defence of the tenant is not warranted, hence, the impugned order is set aside. 2000 (2) MPLJ 385 (SC) followed. 1967 JLJ 859 = 1967 MPLJ 837 (FB), 1977 (II) MPWN 85, 1979 (II) MPWN 18 and 1973 JLJ SN 123 relied on. (2003) 7 SCC 52, 1975 JLJ 779=AIR 1976 MP 5 (FB) and 2014 (4) MPHT 94 discussed.
LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 13¼6½ && izfroknhx.k vfHk/kkjh ds :i es ewy Lokeh ds iq= }kjk izfo"V && oknh us oknxzLr laifŸk Ø; dh && HkkM+s ds cdk;k dk nkok djrs gq, csn[kyh okn Qkby fd;k && izfroknhx.k us oknh dh vfHk/k`fr ls badkj fd;k vkSj fuosnu fd;k fd HkkMs+ dk dksbZ cdk;k ugh gS D;ksafd og ewy Lokeh dks fu;fer lank; dj jgs Fks && izfrokn Hkh Qkby fd;k fd foØ;&foys[k 'kwU; gS vkSj mu ij vkc)dj ugha gS && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us izfrj{kk dkV fn, tkus dk vkosnu] oknh ds Lokeh cuus ds iwoZ dh vof/k ds fy, Hkh laiw.kZ HkkM+k fuf'pr djus es ,d ekl ds foyac ds vk/kkj ij eatwj dj fy;k &&vfHk/kkjh dh izfrj{kk dkV fn, tkus dk vkns'k okaNuh; ugha && vikLrA
avfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;qZDr fo'ys"k.k dh n`f"V ls] izfroknhx.k us] tks NksVh&lh nqdku pykrs gS] HkkM+s dk laiw.kZ cdk;k fuf{kIr dj fn;k gS vkSj oknh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; foys[k ij vk{ksi fd;k gS bl izdkj] izLrqr ekeys ds fof'k"V rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa es] vfHk/kkjh dh izfrj{kk dkV fn, tkus dk vkns'k okaNuh; ugha gS vr% vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA 2000¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 385 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA 1967 ts ,y ts 859 % 1967 ,e ih ,y ts 837 ¼iw.kZ U;k-½] 1977 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 85] 1979 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~Lk 18 rFkk 1973 ts ,y ts 'kk-uks- 123 voyafcrA ¼2003½ 7 ,l lh lh 52] 1975 ts ,y ts 779 % , vkb vkj 1976 e-iz- 5¼iw.kZ U;k-½ rFkk 2014¼4½ ,e ih ,p Vh 94 foosfprA
1. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 16.8.2017 passed by Thirteenth Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal by which application under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "Act of 1961") filed by the respondent has been allowed.
2. The respondent being a landlord, filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent valued to Rs.72,000/- against present petitioners.
3. At present the present petitioners are the tenants of the plaintiff in respect of shop situated in the market at T. T. Nagar, Bhopal. The tenancy is by way of oral agreement and commences from the first day of every month and ends with the last day of the same month. Purpose of tenancy is purely commercial in which petitioners are running hair cutting saloon.
4. The shop in question is a part of the property which was owned by one Hazara Bi who sold it by way of sale deed dated 27.3.2014 to the plaintiff. Present petitioners were inducted as tenants by the son of Hazara Bi. The plaintiff served notices to the defendants for recovery of arrears of rent for the last 31 months from January, 2012 till July 2014 amounting to Rs.46,500/- and also current rent from August, 2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
5. After notice in the suit, the present petitioners being defendants filed written statement denying the tenancy with the plaintiff. They further submitted that there is no arrear of rent and they were regularly paying the same to Hazara Bi. The present petitioners have also challenged that in the suit property the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would not apply and the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Prakoshtha Swamitva Adhiniyam, 2000 would apply. They have also filed counter suit under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC that the sale deed dated 27.3.2014 is void and not binding on them and the plaintiff be restrained from interfering with their peaceful possession.
6. The plaintiff filed the reply to the counter claim. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed 14 issues for adjudication. The issue No. 2 was framed in respect of default in payment of rent and the issue No. 9 was framed whether the sale deed dated 27.3.2014 is void or not.
7. The plaintiff has filed application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint that he is entitled for decree under section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, due to denial of title by the defendants.
8. The plaintiff also filed an application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 alleging that despite the order, the defendants have not deposited the rent in the Court, therefore, their right to defend be struck out.
9. The defendants filed the reply to the said application by giving details that they have deposited the entire rent.
10. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 16.8.2017, has allowed the application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 and closed the right of the defendants, hence, the present petition before this Court.
11. Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that it is not a simple case of eviction and arrears of rent. There is a counter claim filed by the defendants that the sale deed by which the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs is void and not binding on them. Defendants have specifically pleaded that they have paid the rent to Hazara Bi who was owner of the suit property and they are not liable to pay rent to the plaintiff for the period prior to the date of sale deed. Despite that the defendants have deposited the entire rent, therefore, the right to defend has wrongly been struck out.
12. Per contra, Shri Priyank Khandelwal appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the learned trial Court has not committed any error of law or facts while passing the impugned order. The plaintiff filed the suit o
