IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 18 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6189 of 2025 MOHAMMAD YUNUS Versus MOHAMMAD SALEEM Appearance:

Shri Makbool Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant challenging the order under Section 13(2) of MP Accommodation Control Act passed by the Trial Court whereby the provisional rent of the suit shops of which eviction is being sought, has been fixed by the Trial Court.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is alleged to be tenant in the eviction suit and the petitioner has filed his written statement as well as counter-claim to the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent. It is contended that the petitioner has been paying the rent before the Trial Court since the institution of the suit and though the suit was instituted in the year 2021, but the respondent/landlord filed an application for fixation of provisional rent only in the year 2023 and the court Court has directed provisional rent @ Rs.6,000/- for each of the two shops to be paid with effect from the date of filing of the suit. By this order, firstly, the own delay caused by the landlord in filing the application under Section 13(2) has been made a boon for the landlord and the Court could at the most have fixed provisional rent from the date of presentation of application under Section 13(2), or from the date of order. It is further contended that the Trial Court has fixed the provisional rent at higher side in ordering it to be paid @ Rs. 6,000/- per month and by pointing out the averments made in the plaint it has been argued that even as per the plaintiff, for the later part of the year 2020, he has claimed rent @ Rs.5570/- per month but the Trial Court has gone ahead and fixed provisional rent to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month for each of the shops and at most the provisional rent could have been fixed at the rate of Rs. 5570/- per month for each shop as the plaintiff in para 9 of the plaint claimed total rent of Rs.38,990/- per shop for 7 months for later part of the year 2020.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the Court is having the power to fix provisional rent where is dispute as to the actual rate of rent, which is not admitted between the parties. Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is as under:

“13. When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction. - [(1) On a suit or any other proceeding being instituted by a landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12 or in any appeal or any other proceeding by a tenant against any decree or order for his eviction, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or of any other proceeding, or within one month of institution of appeal or any other proceeding by the tenant, as the case may be, or within such further time as the Court may on an application made to it allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made ; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be.

(2) If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-Section (1), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall, on a plea made either by landlord or tenant in that behalf which shall be taken at the earliest opportunity during such suit or proceeding, fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance