1977 Supreme(MP) 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M. L. Malik, J.
Mohammad Ali Bohra - Appellant
Vs.
Dashrath Lal Sharma - Respondent
C. Reven. No. 437 of 1977 (J)
Decided On : 29-07-1977

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) - S. 12 - it does not impose restrictions nor prescribes any limitation on the defence which are open to a tenant - it imposes restrictions on the eviction of a tenant - trial Court holding that the defences under general law are not available to a tenant in an eviction suit - order had in law.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 14, R. 5 - trial Court striking out issues holding that enquiry into them was beyond the scope of the suit - impugned order neither elaborate nor well reasond nor a speaking one - quashed.

       Short Note

       1. In a suit for eviction the tenant - applicant had raised the plea that he was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner Jagdish Pershad Tiwari on payment of Rs. 4.000 as Pagri and further Rs. 4,000 for repairs of the house. It was further agreed that in case Jagdish Persad Tiwari desired to transfer the house to anyone, the tenant will have the first option. The present plaintiff non - applicant who was a purchaser from the legal heirs of Jagdish Persad Tiwari knew of these terms and conditions and, therefore, was not entitled to claim eviction of the tenant. On these pleas issue Nos. 4 and 9 were framed. But by order dated 23 - 3 - 1977 the issue had been struck out. The Court ordered that such defences were beyond the scope of section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act.

       2. Held: It is evident that the learned Judge did not care to read section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Section 12 does not prescribe any limitation on the defences which are open to a tenant. It only says that the landlord has to make out one of the grounds under section 12 for a tenant's eviction. It imposes restrictions on the eviction of tenants rather than imposed restrictions on the defences which the tenant might take under general law. The order striking out issues, therefore on the reasoning given, makes no sense, Before the trial Court struck out any issues on the ground that the enquiry into them beyond the scope of the suit, an elaborate and well reasoned order must be passed. The impugned order is not a speaking order at all. The order must, therefore, be set aside. Case remanded. Revision allowed.