ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 03.02.2022, passed in Civil Suit No.776-A/2020, passed by the 13th Civil Judge, Indore(M.P.) whereby, application filed by the respondent under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1964(hereinafter refereed to as the "Act") has been allowed and the defence of the petitioner was struck off.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner alleging that the Old shop 208(New287) situated at Naya Pura, Main Road, Near Ghadi Wali Maszid, Street No.1, Indore is of the ownership of the respondent. The said shop was let out to the petitioner on rent @ Rs.450/- per month. The respondent alleged that the petitioner is irregular in paying rent and also certain amount of rent is due on him, therefore, the suit was filed for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and for recovery of arrears of rent and also on bonafide requirements under Section 12(1) (f) and 12(1) (c) and mesne profit. The petitioner filed a written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. The petitioner also filed the reply to the application under Section 13(6) of the Act denying the rent and submitted that since there is a dispute of rate of rent between the petitioner and the respondent, the Court is obliged to decide the provisional rent in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court erred in not deciding the provisional rent as per Section 13(2) of the Act before deciding the application under Section 13(6) of the Act. The petitioner in his written statement has mentioned that the rate is Rs.400/- per month whereas in the plaint it is mentioned to be Rs.450/- per month, therefore, there was a dispute. The trial Court came to the conclusion on the basis of some receipts filed by the respondent herein without considering the receipts of Rs.400/- per month. The trial Court also arbitrarily struck off the defence of the petitioner. In support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chhogalal Jankilal Vs. Idol of Bhagwan Shri Satyanarayan through Kamaldas Guru, Pujari, reported in 1975 MPLJ 657, Jivarambhai and Another Vs. Amar Singh, reported in 1972 MPLJ 785 and Smt. Sadhnabai Vs. Smt. Johrabee (W.P. No.719/2017).

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff is claiming the rent @ Rs.450/- per month. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement disputing the said rent and according to him the rent is only Rs.400/- per month, therefore, the dispute has arose in respect of ownership as well as quantum of rent. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chhogalal Jankilal(Supra) has held that obligation to deposit or pay rent arises only when the Court fixes the reasonable provisional rent and till then obligation to deposit the rent in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 13 remains suspended. The sub-section (2) of Section 13 is silent regarding the manner in which the dispute should be raised. The moment the defendant has raised the dispute in the written statement the obligation to deposit the rent gets suspended until the Court fixes the provisional rent.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Jamnalal & Others Vs. Radheshyam, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 380 has held as under :

“Where the dispute as to the amount of rent payable to the tenant has no nexus with the rate of rent, the determination of such dispute in a summery inquiry is not contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 13. Such a dispute has to be resolved after trial of the case.

Consequently, it is only when the obligations imposed in Section 13(1) cannot be complied with without resolving the dispute under Sub-section (2) of that s