Suganchand vs Laxmandas - 1980 Supreme(MP) 722

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : S.S. Jha
For the Non-applicants : M.L. Jaiswal

Headnote:(1) Accommodation, Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 13 (2) & (3) - distinction between - relationship of landlord and tenat denied - proper order to be passed - what is - amount of rent admitted - whether tenant may be directed to deposit even before deciding issue of relationship.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 14, R. 2 - preliminary issue - nature of - issue requiring evidence - whether a preliminary issue.
       Short Note
       1. After the filing of the suit, the plaintiff - applicants, on 10 - 9 - 1977, made an application to the Court, praying that as the defendant - non - applicant had failed to deposit rent as require1 by the provisions of section 13 of the Act his defence against eviction be struck out under sub - section (6, of the said section. It was this application which was disposed of by the Court by its order dated 27 - 9 - 1977. The Court rejected the application on the ground that it was premature. The Court referred to the issue No.3 (c) framed in the suit, to the effect as to whether the defendant - non - applicant had become the tenant of the plaintiff - applicants on account of the purchase in question', and held that since the said issue was to be tried and decided as a preliminary issue, the plaintiff - applicants could make the application, if any, after the decision of the Court on the said issue. As has been stated above, it is having been aggrieved by the above said order dated 27 - 9 - 1977 that the plaintiff - applicants have filed the present revision petition in this Court.
       2. Held: Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order in question passed by the trial Court suffers from an error of jurisdiction and has, therefore, to be set aside. It is needless to trace the history as to how the law relating to the question of interpretation of the various sub - sections of section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has grown. It is now well settled that in a case where there was no dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent was payable, but there was a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the provisions of sub - section (2) of section 13 would apply and the Court would be required to fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub - section (1) till the decision of the suit. It is further well settled that in a case where there was a dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent was payable, i.e. in case where the defendant admitted that he had been a tenant in respect of the accommodation but contended that some person other than the plaintiff had been the landlord, the provisions of sub - sections (3) of section 13 would apply. The Court may' direct the tenant to deposit with the Court the amount payable by him under sub - section (l) or sub - section (2) of the said section. The said direction is not to wait till the issue as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was finally decided. The said direction has to be made in the beginning of the trial itself and has to be of a provisional nature, based on the material that might be produced by the parties for the purpose. If the Court. was satisfied from the material produced that there was prima facie case established as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and further if there was no dispute with regard to amount of' rent payable by the defendant, the Court could direct the tenant to deposit with the Court the amount payable by him under. sub - section (1). On the other hand, if in any such case, there was a dispute with regard to the amount of rent payable by the defendant, the Court could fix a reasonable provisional rent as provided for under subsection (2) and direct the tenant to deposit the same. If the Court was satisfied that there was no prima facie case established as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. it could direct that it was not necessary for the defendant to deposit any amount.
       3. From the legal position stated above, it is clear that in the present case, inasmuch as the defendant - non - applicant had been a tenant in respect of the accommodation but contended that some person other th3.n the plaintiff - applicants had been the landlord, the provisions of sub - section (3) of section 13 applied It is further clear that inasmuch as the trial Court failed to consider and decide the question of making all appropriate direction under sub - section (3), and instead directed the issue relating to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to be decided first as a preliminary issue, there was a failure on the part of the trial Court to exercise its jurisdiction under sub - section (3) of section 13 of the Act. In fact, the trial of issue in question as a preliminury issue, requiring evidence to be adduced by the parties, was not warranted by the provisions of Order 14, rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure. Revision allowed.