IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH MISC. PETITION No. 1685 of 2023 SUBHANSHU SONI Versus VIRENDRA JAIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Lokesh Mehta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Chetan Jain - Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.

Reserved on :- 22.07.2024 Posted on :- 10.09.2024 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in RCSA No. 10695/2021, whereby the defense of the appellant/defendant/tenant has been struck off under Section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

02. Facts in brief are that respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court for eviction, recovery of rent and for the mesne profit alleging that the petitioner/defendant is irregular in paying rent and the respondent/plaintiff have a need of accommodation for his bonafide need. Therefore the suit for evictionis filed on the ground of bonafie need and on the ground of irregularity of rent (Annexure-P-1). The petitioner/defendant Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI filed the reply of the suit and alleged that he was regularly paying the rent and with the permission of the respondent / plaintiff some construction was carried out by the petitioner / defendant therefore with the permission of the respondent / plaintiff the rent was adjusted in the monthly rent. The copy of the reply filed herewith and marked as Annexure P/2 to the petition. The trial court after framing the issues started the evidence, but prior to that the respondent/ plaintiff filed the application U/s 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and the trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2023 allowed the application and the defense was struck out. The copy of the order dated 09.01.2023 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/3. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the trial Court dt.09.01.2023 the illegal and malafide, arbitrary approach of the trial Court the present petition is being filed.

03. This petition has been filed on the ground that the order passed by the trial Court is bad in law and not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence and it is also not considered the averment and submission of the petitioner/defendant and by passing such impugned order the learned court below has committed a serious error and irregularity by allowing the application filed by the respondent U/s 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The approach of the Court respondent is totally illegal, malafide and arbitrary towards the petitioner because the evidence was not started and the petitioner/defendant also made the request to the respondent/plaintiff that some rent is already adjusted with the consent of the respondent / plaintiff but the trial court without considering the same came to the conclusion that Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI the rent was not deposited well within time and it is settled law that the defense cannot be struck out without any proper reason.

04. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

05. Copy of the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff/applicant/landlord and the reply filed by the petitioner/defendants/tenant have not been filed along with the petition. Accordingly, facts are being gathered from the plaint (Exhibit-P-1), rejoinder statement (Exhibit-P-2) and the impugned order (Exhibit-P-3) and it is nowhere on record that the petitioner has deposited the rent after March, 2020. He cannot avoid the consequences of an application under Section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 because Lease Agreement was not renewed. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order and no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

No order as to costs..

(GAJENDRA SINGH)

JUDGE rashmi Si