IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI ON THE 10^th OF MAY, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 1521 of 2021 Between:-

SMT. SAROJLATA TIWARI W/O SHRI TEERATH PRASAD TIWARI , AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE H.NO. 529 SHANTI NAGAR RANJHI P.S. RANJHI JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRAHALAD CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE)

AND MANISH SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI C.L.D.P.

SHRIVASTAVA H.NO. 502/01-S-500 OPPOSITE OF KANYASHALA SHANTI NAGAR RANJHI DIST.

JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR RESPONDENT )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 22/02/2021 (Annexure P/1)

nd st passed in R.C.S.No.765/2018 by II Civil Judge, Class-I , Jabalpur.

The facts reveal that the petitioner/plaintiff herein has filed a suit for eviction under the Provision of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, against the respondent/plaintiff. However, during the pendency of the suit, defendant was required to pay the monthly rent, however, the defendant committed default by not paying the monthly rent, therefore, the petitioner moved an application under Section 13 (6) of M P Accommodation Control Act, which has been rejected vide order dated 22/02/2021.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent/defendant has not deposited the proper amount of monthly rent. On the contrary, he has deposited the less amount of rent. Thus, it is submitted that there was an apparent default and therefore the learned Court below ought to have closed the right of the respondent/defendant to defend.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record it reveals that this was not the first application of the petitioner/plaintiff which was decided by the Court. Earlier as well, the petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act which was dismissed vide order dated 05/03/2020 and therefore, the Court below while dealing with the petitioner's subsequent application filed under Section 13(6) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation and Control Act, held on the same set of submissions, the subsequent application could not have been filed and thus has rejected the application of the petitioner with the cost of Rs.200/-.

The petitioner's application filed under Section 13(6) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation and Control Act, does not speak about the default in payment of monthly rent. However it appears that the petitioner has grievance as regards the quantum of rent which reflect from paragraph 3 of the application filed under Section 13(6) Madhya Pradesh Accommodation and Control Act.

Section 13(6) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation and Control Act, provides that "if a tenent fails to deposit of pay any amount as required by this Section, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be".

In the present case, on perusal of application moved under Section 13(6)

of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation and Control Act, there appears to be no failure to deposit the amount of rent by the respondent/defendant herein. Thus, in considered view of this Court, the petition devoids of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed ,however, no order as to cost.

(MANINDER S BHATTI)

JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN Date: 2022.05.13 18:12:41 IST