IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 2835 of 2019

MANOJ KEWAT(NISHAD) AND OTHERS

Versus

SMT. PRATIBHA TRIPATHI

Appearance:

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Rajneesh Kant Rajak - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-

1 dated 16.05.2019, whereby the trial Court has struck off the defence of the petitioner under Section 13(6) of M.P. accommodation control act on the ground that the tenant has failed to deposit or pay the amount as required by

this provision.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the summons were

served upon the the petitioner/defendant/tenant on 10.10.2017 and he deposited the entire areas of rent on 16.01.2019. However, the defence has been struck off by the Court on 16.05.2019, but prior to that date, the entire

rent had been deposited by the petitioner-defendant.

3. The trial Court has allowed the application of landlord under

Section 13(6) by noting that though the arrears of rent have been deposited,

but thereafter the monthly rent has not been properly deposited within time.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that if prior to deciding of the application under Section 13(6) the rent had been deposited, then the Court was required to take a sympathetic and pragmatic view of the matter in terms of judgments of this Court in the case Rajkumar vs. Heera Lal M.P.

4825 of 2024 decided on 11.09.2024.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent landlord has submitted that there has been a compromise between the parties and compromise application has been filed before the trial Court and even the vacant possession of the property has been handed over back to the respondent landlord around three to four months ago. Due to stay on proceedings by this Court, orders on comproise application have not been passed by the Trial Court.

6. Considering the rival submissions, it is seen that prior to deciding the application under Section 13(6) the tenant had deposited the rent despite which the extreme step had been taken by the trial Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajkumar (supra) has held as under:- "9. In the case of Bachchoobhai vs. Premanand Bhiogadhe 1975 JLJ 682 = AIR 1976 MP 8, a coordinate Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the scope of Section 13 of the Act and summarized the legal position as under :

The legal position may be recapitulated and summed up as follows:—

(1) There are two parts in section 13(1), each of which is mandatory and each of which is to be complied with by the tenant on the dates specified in it.

(2) The following will be compliance with the first part of section 13(1):—

(a) The tenant deposits all arrears of rent within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him; or (b) The tenant deposits all arrears of rent within such time as the Court may extend. This can be done only on an application by the tenant, but not suo motu. Such an application can be made at any time but to allow or not to allow it will be in the discretion of the Court to which it is made. However, it cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was not made within one month of the service of the writ of summons on the defendant; or (c) The tenant raises a dispute within the meaning of section 13(2) of the Act within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him and then deposits the provisional rent, as fixed by the Court, without any delay.

(3) it will be compliance with the second part of section 13(1) in the following cases—The Court has no power to extent time for compliance with this part of section 13(1), the obvious reason being that unlike the first part of section 13(1), the tenant, under the second part, has not to deposit any accumulated arrears of rent. That is the reason for the distinction.

(a) The tenant goes on depositing month by month by the 15th day of every calendar month,