1987 Supreme(MP) 535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.N. SINGH, J.
O.P. Gaur - Appellant
Vs.
Pannalal - Respondents
S.A. No. 126 of 1986 (G)
Decided On : 04-02-1987

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 12 (1) (a) and 12 (3) – all arrears of rent deposited – tenant cannot be evicted under S. 12 (1) (a).

        Short Note

       1. That is pressed with great vehemence and gusto is not the appeal but the cross – objection. This is done by shri R.C. Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, assailing the conclusion and findings of the Court below that the grounds envisaged in clauses (c) and (o) of section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the Act, were not available to the landlord – respondent. This appeal was preferred by the tenant – defendant because the Court below passed a decree against him under clause (a) of section 12 (1) of the Act.

       Held : In view of the decisions rendered in Lacchobai Rathor (Second Appeal No. 22 of 1986 decided on 16 – 1 – 1987) I have no hesitation to say that the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed in this Court. It is submitted by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that all rents due payable by his client has been duly deposited in Court and he is not in arrears. That being the position, I have no hesitation to say that the plea taken under clause (a) for tenant's eviction is no longer alive and no decree can be passed against him against section 12 (3) of the Act as held in Lacchobai Rathor (supra). It is conceded by Shri Lahoti that he has not and indeed cannot invoked proviso of under S.12 (3) in the circumstances of the case. What remains to be said is that despite forceful arguments of Shri Lahoti on the cross – objection I am of the view that my interference with the decision on facts of the Court below as respects ground envisaged under clauses (c) and (o) is not at all warranted. The cross – objection is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is allowed.

       2. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below are set aside because all arrears of rent due payable by the tenant has been deposited during pendency of this appeal. I am inclined to consider still the prayer of Shri Lahoti that the respondent is entitled to have cost under section 13 (5) of the Act. S.A. No. 22 of 1986 dt. 16 – 1 – 1987 relied on. Appeal allowed.