1985 Supreme(MP) 72

K. K. Varma, J.
Asha Ram v. Bindrawan
C. R. No. 247 of 1982 (G); Decided on 25-1-1985.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P) -So 13 (1) d`rigor of the provision -cannot be escaped by denial of relationship of landlord and tenant.

       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P) - S. 13 t1)-delay in deposit of arrears and monthly rent-Court can condone the delay and extend time to deposit.

       (3) Civil P.C. 1908-S. 115d`revision under - revisional Court can consider subsequent events.

       This is a defendants revision under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 152-1982, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Gohad, in Civil Suit No.107-A/78 by which his defence was struck-off under section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter also referred to as the Act).

       Held: The applicants stand in the trial Court for escaping the mandate of section 13 (1) is indefensible, as it has been held in Inder Lal v. Mahangibai 1967 JLJ 31. Mishrilal v. Annapurmabai, 1976 MPRCJ 492 and Trilokchand v. Gopikishan, 1981 JLJ S. No.13 that a defendant in an eviction suit cannot escape the rigor of section 13 (1) by denying the plaintiff is his lessor. In view of this settled position of the law, the applicants learned counsel did not press into service the stand taken by the applicant in the Court below.

       The applicants learned counsel now submits that though the applicants aforementioned stand was ill-advised, he deposited all arrears within 7 days after the present revision was filed (on 3-3-1982) and ever since has. b(ell making monthly deposits, in the trial Court It is prayed that the High Court may take notice of these subsequent events and set aside the impugned order so as to enable the applicant to contest the eviction suit. To this end an application was filed in this revision proceeding on 17-7-1984,

       The non-applicants learned counsel urged that the applicant has not come to this Court in good faith in so far as it was only after the High Court had dismissed his second appeal against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance filed by him against the non-applicant and Ram Swaroop that he started to make deposit of rent under section 13 (1) of the Act.

       Now, this Court as a revisional Court has jurisdiction to take into consideration subsequent events in disposing of a revision petition as was held in P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders (AIR 1975 SC 1409). Moreover, it has been held in Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas (1980 JLJ 280) that the Court has the jurisdiction to extend time for deposit or payment of monthly rent falling due after the filing of the suit. this is the prayer now made by the defendant in this Court. The question is whether he should have a hearing on such a plea after his defence had been struck-off under section 13 (6) of the Act. Now, if such a plea had been taken by the applicant after the non-applicant had filed his application under, section 13 (6) of the Act, the trial Court would have been bound to consider the plea for condo-nation of delay before deciding to strike off his defence because the object of the Act is the adequate protection of the tenant. Since the applicant has deposited the arrears, he is entitled to a hearing on his plea for extension of time for making or for condo-nation of delay in making the outstanding deposits. The non-applicant is also entitled to resist such a plea. It is evident that if the trial Court thinks fit to condone the delay on being satisfied about the justifiability or excusability thereof, it may not choose to strike-off the defence of the applicant, or vice versa. Hence the following order is being passed keeping the interest of both sides into consideration.

       The case is sent back to the trial Court It is ordered as follows, The parties shall appear in the trial Court on, 10-2-1985, when the defendant shall pay Rs.150/- as costs to the plaintiff to compensate the latter for having made the belated application in the High Court on 17-7-1984. If the defendant pays costs and files an application for condo-nation of delay in making the deposits under section 13 (1) of the Act on 10-2-1985, the impugned order shall stand vacated.

       In that event the Civil Judge shall give an opportunity to the plaintiff to file a written reply to it. The Judge will then make a summary enquiry and dispose of the defendants application for condo-nation of delay and the plaintiffs application under section 13 (6) of the Act in accordance with law, and the parties shall bear their costs of the revision as incurred.

       If the defendant does not take the two steps on 10-2-1985 the impugned order shall stand, and the defendant shall be debarred from getting the delay in making deposits condoned. 1967 JLJ 31, 1976 JLJ SN 12=1976 MPRCJ 492, 1981 JLJ SN 13, AIR 1975 SC 1409 and 1980 JI J 280 relied on. Revision disposed of.