IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026 SECOND APPEAL No. 26 of 2024

SATISH KUMAR JAIN

Versus

NEERAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Gaurav Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondents

ORDER suit for eviction was filed on various grounds. The trial Court by judgment dated dated 26/6/2023 passed in RCSA No.54/2020 dismissed the suit, which has been set aside by the appellate Court and a decree under section 12(1)(a) of Act has been passed.

This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the

judgment and decree dated 14/12/2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Ashoknagar in RCA No.33/2023, by which judgment and decree dated 26/6/2023 passed by I Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashoknagar in RCSA No.54/2020 has been set aside and decree for eviction under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short "the Act") has

been passed by the appellate Court.

2. By order dated 10/1/2024, this appeal was admitted on the following

substantial question of law:-

"Whether learned appellate erred in recording the perverse findings in respect of Section 12(1)(a) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, despite of evidence on record that there was no omission in respect of

payment of rent on part of defendant?"

3. Since the controversy involved in the present case lies in a narrow

compass, therefore, detailed discussion of factual matrix is not required. It is suffice to mention here that appellant is tenant on monthly tenancy of Rs.100/-. A

4. Admittedly, there was some delay in depositing the rent on 11/8/2021 and admittedly from the year 2023 till today no rent has been deposited. No application under section 13(2) of the Act has been filed before any Court. Although by reading out the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that word "application" does not mean an application in writing and the application can also be verbal and although the appellant neither filed any application before the trial Court, nor before the appellate Court for extension of time to deposit the rent and he has also not filed any application before this Court, but he is making a verbal prayer that delay in depositing the rent may be condoned and the time may be extended and the arrears of rent deposited on 11/8/2021 may be treated as within limitation, and further time may be extended for depositing the arrears of rent.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the word "application" mentioned in section 13(2) of the Act includes verbal application also or not ?.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad reported in (2003) 7 SCC 52 has held as under:-

"6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly go to show that although the court has the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the rent both for the period during which the tenant had defaulted as well as the period subsequent thereto but an application is to be made therefor. The provision requiring an application to be made is indisputably necessary for the purpose of showing sufficient cause as to why such deposit could not be made within the time granted by the court. The court does not extend time or condone the delay on mere sympathy. It will exercise its discretion judicially and on a finding of existence of sufficient cause."

7. Thus, it is clear that application for extension of time to deposit the rent has to be made in writing, thereby explaining the reasons for not depositing rent within the statutory period as provided under section 13(1) of the Act. The period to deposit the rent cannot be extended by adopting a sympathetic view.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra v. Goverdhan Bhai reported in (2018) 12 SCC 533 has held as under:-

"12. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the respondents had