Prateek Agrawal vs Nawab Khan

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory orders dated 04.09.2013 & 06.08.2013 passed by Court below, whereby two applications, first one filed u/s 12(3) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity ''Act of 1961) preferred by the defendants/tenants has been rejected while the second application u/s 13(6) of the Act of 1961 filed by the plaintiff/landlord has been allowed. Perusal of the impugned orders indicate that 24 months delay occurred in depositing of rent by the defendants/tenants in terms of provisions of section 13(1) of Act of 1961. The reasons assigned by the defendants/tenants is that they have family responsibilities to discharge and their mother and grand mother were unwell and the defendants/tenants were not aware of the legal intricacies.

The trial court has not found these reasons to be good enough, entailing in dismissing the application u/s 12(3) of Act of 1961 while allowing the application u/s 13(6) of Act of 1961 filed by the landlord-respondent by striking out defence of tenants against eviction. The trial court has categorically held that the provisions of section 13(1) of Act of 1961 have not been complied with by the tenants as rent has not been paid within one month of service of summon on the tenants and no permission for extension of time for compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 13(1) Act of 1961 has been granted by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the reasons assigned by the defendants/tenants in support of their application u/s 12(3) of Act of 1961 was genuine and bonafide in nature and, therefore, ought to have been accepted despite default on the part of the petitioners/tenants.

It is noticeable that the default in the present case is of 24 months and, therefore, the reasons assigned by the defendants/tenants about ignorance of law and their mother and grand mother being unwell cannot be accepted as no relief can be granted in law solely on ground of sympathy. The matter would have been different, if the period of default was short, but looking to the fact that the default in compliance of mandatory provisions of section 13(1) is very long, the same cannot be ignored.

The trial court has not transgressed any of its jurisdictional limit prescribed u/s 12(3) and section 13(6) of Act of 1961 to enable this Court to pass any order in favour of the petitioners, which shall be in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of above, no case for interference is made out by learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is therefore, dismissed, sans cost.