Ram Kumar vs Nauayandas Daga and another

A. P. Sen, J.

This revision u/s 115 of the CPC is directed against the order dated 31st July 1967, passed by the II Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur.

The short question involved in this revision is whether the learned Judge acted illegally or with material irregularity in making a direction in terms of section 13(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in a suit between landlord and tenant.

The plaintiffs claimed the ejectment of the defendant on the ground mentioned u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act, for alleged failure on his part to comply with a notice of demand for payment of the arrears of rent due. According to them, the defendant was in arrears with the rent amounting to Rs. 2,720. Thereupon, the defendant filed an application u/s 12 (2) and (3), by raising a dispute as regards the amount of rent payable as well as a dispute as to whom it is payable.

The learned Judge was of the view that unless there was unconditional payment of the arrears claimed within 15 days of the date of order, the defence will be liable to be struck off. Hence this revision.

Shri P. R. Padhye, learned counsel for the applicant confined his submission to section 13(2) and according to him, under that provision the Court has to decide a dispute both in respect of the arrears payable and the rate of rent which is to be paid or deposited. In other words, the dispute referred to in sub-section (2) includes a dispute as to the amount of arrears. In support of his submission, the learned counsel places reliance upon three unreported decisions of Sharma J., in Ramniwas v. Kisanlal C. Rev. No. 162 of 1963 decided on the 13th December 1963 (Gwalior Bench), Labhchand v. Ramswarup C. Rev. No. 206 of 1963 decided on the 9th January 1964 (Gwalior Bench), and Ramnarain v. Gourishankar C. Rev. No. 229 of 1963 decided on the 30th January 1964 (Gwalior Bench). He also invites my attention to Premdas v. Laxmi Narayan Pandey 1964 M P L J 190 and Surajprasad v. Ganpatrai 1967 M P L J 65.

The contention cannot be accepted. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin Vs. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad, , while interpreting similar provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the provisions of this section operate against the landlord, and its provisions should be strictly interpreted and their scope must not be extended beyond the limit warranted by the language used therein.

Shri S. N. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, rightly contends that the language of section 13(1), particularly the opening words "On a suit or proceeding being instituted" are clear and explicit, and it is not the plea of the defendant that determines whether he is or is not liable to make any deposit under the provision but the averments in the plaint. In Inderlal Balktran v. Mahagin Bai 1967 M P L J 125, Dixit C. J. and Bhave J., have said that the liability of the defendant to make deposit under that provision arises the moment a suit for eviction is filed against him by the landlord. It follows, as a necessary corollary, that the defendant must pay or deposit the arrears claimed within the time allowed provided there is no dispute as regards the rate at which the rent is to be paid. The unreported decisions of Sharma J. have been noticed with disapproval in Inderlal Balkiran v. Mahagin Bai, and have been overruled on another point. The decision of Dixit C. J., in Suraj Prasad v. Ganpatrai (8), is distinguishable on its own facts.

Having regard to the context in which they appear, the words "as to the amount of rent payable", appearing in section 12(2) must be interpreted as meaning "as to the rate of rent payable". On the plain language of this section, the Court is required to decide a dispute as to the rate of rent at which it is to be paid and not a dispute as to the amount of arrears payable. This is made clear by the latter part of section 13(2) which contemplates fixation of a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the premises till the decision of the suit or appeal. Any other construction would lead to a patent absurdity. When a suit is filed on the ground mentioned u/s 12(1)(a) there can never be a direction u/s 13(6) for striking out the defence without a virtual trial of the main issue in the suit, namely, whether the tenant is or is not in arrears with the rent, and if so, to what extent, because the defendant can always avoid this consequence by pleading that he is not in arrears or that arrears are not to the extent claimed.

The result is that the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50, if certified.