Prithvipal Ghai vs Smt. Rajkumari Dhingra

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

This petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 14.3.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2014, whereby the application of respondent, preferred u/s 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity, the "Act") is allowed by the court below and the petitioner is directed to deposit the rent money for the period from January, 2010 to December, 2013 @ Rs. 1500/- per month in the Court within 15 days.

By amending the petition, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6.9.2013, whereby the application of plaintiff under Order 22 Rules 3 and 4, CPC, is allowed.

Shri Budholiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a bare perusal of application, Annexure P/4, filed u/s 13(6) of the Act shows that the plaintiff has stated that from the date of institution of civil suit, no rent has been deposited and, therefore, the right of defence of the petitioner be struck of. He submits that as per this application, the rent was payable from 31.7.2012, the date of institution of suit, whereas the court has committed an error in granting it from January, 2010. In addition, he submits that Annexure P/7 itself shows that the genuineness of the will is yet to be established. He submits that unless evidence is recorded and a finding is given, the plaintiff has no right. In support of his contentions, he relied on Jamnalal and Others Vs. Radheshyam, .

Prayer is opposed by Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. He supported the orders impugned.

The order dated 6.9.2013 shows that plaintiff Smt. Rajkumari Dhingra filed the suit. Smt. Rita Birmani was shown to be appointed as power of attorney holder. The court below in the said order opined that in the application, which is decided by Annexure P-7, it is urged that the suit property is given by registered will to Smt. Rita Birmani by the plaintiff. In support of this, copy of the will is filed. The court below opined that the locus of Smt. Rita Birmani cannot be examined at this stage. It can be decided only after recording the evidence.

In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or perversity in the said order. It is a mixed question of fact and law whether suit at the instance of power of attorney holder can be entertained and court below has taken a plausible view that this aspect will be dealt with after recording evidence. Thus, no interference with this order is warranted. So far the order dated 14.3.2014 (Annexure P-1) is concerned, the court below opined that the rent has already been fixed as Rs. 1500/- per month by Rent Controlling Authority (RCA). Thus, the court below was not required to fix a provisional rent. I am not impressed with the contention of Shri Budholiya that against the order of RCA fixing the rent, appeal is pending. In absence of interim order in appeal, the court below has not erred in relying on the rent fixed by the RCA. In addition, court below has only directed that the amount of rent from January, 2010 to December, 2013 be deposited in the court. The court below has not directed its reimbursement to the plaintiff. Thus, it is in consonance with the requirement of section 13(6) of the Act. The plaintiff has not prayed in his application u/s 13(6) that amount of rent be deposited only from the date of filing of the suit. It is only a statement of fact mentioned in the said application that amount has not been deposited since last 18 months. The court below is within its jurisdiction to direct deposit amount of rent as held in Jamnalal (supra).

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. Even an erroneous order is not required to be corrected in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The basic purpose of exercising the said jurisdiction is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . There is no ingredient on which interference can be made in this petition.

In view of aforesaid, no interference is made out. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No costs.