ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

7.1. The Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P/3) and order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by the learned Subordinate Court in RCSA-1156/2021.

7.2. Any other relief in favour of the petitioner may also be granted, if the facts and circumstances of the case permit in the interest of justice.

7.3. The cost of the petition may also be awarded.

2.It is the case of the petitioners that they are the tenant in the property owned by the respondent who is in possession of the suit property bearing A-

Block, Pavitra Apartment situated at Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Initially the rent of the property was fixed with the consent of both the parties as Rs.3,5000/- per month. It is submitted that in the year 2021, the respondent dishonestly filed a civil suit for eviction for the relief of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent stating therein that the monthly rent of the property is Rs.7,500/-.

3.It is argued that the on notice being issued, the petitioners appeared and filed their written statement wherein it is specifically stated that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month. The intention of the respondent is to get vacate the property in question at any cost. After framing of issues when the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff, the respondent filed an application under Order 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, stating therein that the petitioners may be directed to pay rent @ Rs.7,500/-. The learned Trial Court allowed the application of the respondent vide order dated 18.10.2023 whereby directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent @ 7,500/- per month.

4.Against the order dated 18.10.2023, the petitioners filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. stating therein that since the averments made by the petitioners in written statement have been overlooked by the learned Trial Court, the order dated 18.10.2023 is required to be reviewed. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 22.02.2024. Hence, this petition.

5.Challenge to the order passed by the learned Trial Court is made on the ground that the rent of the property was fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month with the consent of both the parties. However, there is no material on record to show that the rent of the premises in question is Rs.3,500/- as alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners claim themselves to be the tenant of the property in question. He is paying the rent at the rate of Rs.3,500/- from years together but no such document even the payment receipt of Rs.3,500/- is placed on record neither before the Trial Court nor before this Court. Admittedly, he is a defaulter and has not deposited the amount of rent since long. The learned Trial Court has considered the provisions of Section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and has passed the impugned order. No application in terms of Section 13 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been filed for fixing the interim rent.

6.Under these circumstances, the learned Trial Court was well justified in ordering for deposition of rent at the rate of Rs.7,500/-. No illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court.

7.The scope of interference in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra Shhankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 wherein certain guidelines have been framed by the Supreme Court, which are as under :-

"The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their autho