Striking out a tenant's defense for eviction does not preclude them from contesting arrears of rent; they retain the right to lead evidence on that issue.

ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was finally heard on 26.11.2024 and today the order is being pronounced.

2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure-P/11) passed in a pending civil suit by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhopal. By this order, the trial court rejected an application submitted by the petitioner-defendant in a pending civil suit filed for seeking a decree of eviction on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”). The trial court in the pending civil suit had passed an order under Section 13(6) of Act, 1961 and closed the right of the defendant-petitioner as he did not comply with the order of the trial court by depositing the rent as was provisionally fixed by the court. Such order was assailed by the petitioner before the High Court but the High Court affirmed the order of the court below by dismissing the petition i.e. M.P.No.2481/2024. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner filed the application on 26.02.2024 for leading evidence on the issue of arrears of rent, but that application has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order, which has given rise to filing of present petition.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner sanguinely submitted that the order passed by the court below declining opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to lead evidence in respect of the issue related to decree of arrears of rent is precarious and does not stand the test of settled legal position. He accentuated that striking out of defence was confined to the decree of eviction and not otherwise. He further submitted that earlier order passed by the court below exercising power provided under Section 13(6) of Act, 1961 did not actually debar the defendant-tenant to contest the issue as to arrears of rent, but the court without heeding to that aspect, erroneously did not allow the defendant to lead evidence or to defend herself, in respect of the decree of arrears of rent. To reinforce his assertion, he placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Kewal Kumar v. Satish Chandra and another passed in M.P.No.4866/1989 saying that the Division Bench has clarified this situation and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court has very categorically held that the striking of defence for not depositing the rent by the tenant would not debar the tenant to contest the issue as to arrears of rent.

4. In contrast, Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the case is at the verge of final decision and the petitioner failed to deposit the rent and therefore eviction on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) can be claimed and the petitioner-defendant has no right to lead any evidence. He relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Manorama Devi Wd/o Parmanand and Others v. Suresh S/o. Kailash Narain and Others rendered in S.A.No.285/1998 on 28.11.1998 and reported in 1999(1) MPLJ 436

5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival parties and also perused the documents available on record.

6. Indeed, it is a case of seeking decree of eviction on the ground of Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) of Act, 1961 filed by the landlord-plaintiff (respondent) against the tenant-defendant (petitioner). In addition, a decree of arrears of rent has also been claimed amounting to Rs.2,73,544/-. The trial court vide order dated 12.02.2024 exercising the power provided under Section 13(6) of Act, 1961 had struck of the defence of the petitioner-tenant. Such order was