IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 5953 of 2024 YAMUNESH NAGAR AND OTHERS Versus DILIP BANSAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri N.K. Gupta- learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shatru Daman Singh Bhadouriyia- learned Counsel for petitioners.

Ms. Ruchil Jain- learned Counsel for respondent No.2.

ORDER This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Third Judge of the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") in Regular Civil Suit No.424-A of 2022, whereby the trial Court allowed the application of respondents-defendants under Section 13(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they had filed a suit for eviction against the respondents under Section 12(1)(a), (b), and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, on the grounds of non- payment of rent, subletting of premises, and bona fide requirement for accommodation. The tenancy commenced vide written agreement dated

21.12.2008, with defendants paying a monthly rent of Rs. 2,282/- for the rented shop. Despite repeated notices, the respondents failed to pay the rent and sublet the accommodation to another party. It was pleaded that the defendants failed to comply with the Court’s order dated 04.11.2023, which directed them to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days. Therefore, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Section 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. On 01.10.2024, the trial Court struck down the defendants' defence and permitted the suit to proceed. However, the respondents filed an application under Section 13(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, disputing the title of the property and introducing certain documents under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. It was contended that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the respondents to introduce documents without proper pleadings and in restraining them from withdrawing rent deposited in the Court, despite the earlier Court order. In support of these contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the decision of Ashok Choudhary vs. Gwalior Dairy Ltd. and Others reported in 2018 (2) MPLJ 301, where this Court emphasized the importance of adherence to procedural requirements in such matters. Learned Senior Counsel also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar and Another reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787, which holds that once a tenant admits the landlord-tenant relationship, any challenge to the eviction should not be allowed to proceed without proper compliance with legal formalities and statutory obligations. In light of the above, learned Senior Counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 01-10-2024, so far as Order 13 Rule 3 and Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the petition, contending that the dispute regarding the title of the property is unresolved. The question of title must be resolved before the rent can be withdrawn by the petitioners. There were irregularities in the petitioners' assertions regarding the payment of rent. The introduction of documents under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC was justified, as the documents were relevant and necessary to the determination of the title issue. The petitioners have no legal right to withdraw rent until the issue of the landlord-tenant relationship is conclusively settled. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. On perusal of the record as well as the written statements of the defendants, it is found that the defendants admitted that they are the tenants, including