In Re: W.P. 7674/13

Sujoy Paul, J.—With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.

This petition challenges the order dated 25.7.2013 whereby the Court below has decided the application u/s 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Shri C.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was required to deposit the rent within the stipulated time under the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, petitioner has belatedly deposited the same. Shri Singh submits that no doubt petitioner has committed a legal error but a sympathetic view be taken and interference be made on the impugned order whereby his defence is struck out by the Court below.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Court below opined that earlier ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioner was required to deposit the rent within a stipulated time. The rent was deliberately not deposited before the said time. Neither reasons for not depositing the same within time are shown, nor any application seeking condonation of delay is filed. Considering the aforesaid, the Court below opined that action of the present petitioner is deliberate with a view to delay the proceedings.

The question is whether the aforesaid finding of the Court below is liable to be interfered with? The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . None of these ingredients are available here.

In the present case, the Court below has taken a plausible view, which is in accordance with law. This Court is a court of law and not a court of mercy. In absence of pointing out any legal error, no interference is warranted. I find no ingredient in which interference can be made.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.