Ramakant Ratner vs Gopal Prasad Sharma

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pipariya in COS No. 7-A/2009, whereby his application filed u/s 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short "The Act") for striking out the defence of the respondent-defendant on the grounds of eviction under the Act has been dismissed on the ground that the respondent has denied relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner in his written statement. The petitioner''s counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record alongwith the averments of the petition argued that the petitioner has filed the impugned suit stating himself to be landlord of the disputed premises on the basis of registered sale deed and after such sale deed, the tenancy of the respondent with the earlier landlord was duly attorned in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent to it, inspite giving the demand notice to the respondent for the sum of arrears of rent inspite service of the same within two months such sum of arrears was neither paid nor sent to the petitioner by the respondent. Even after receiving the summon of the suit by the respondent within 30 days in accordance with the provision of Section 13(1) of Act, the entire arrears of the rent was neither paid nor deposited. The regular recurring rent of such accommodation is also not being deposited, on which the impugned application u/s 13(6) of the Act was filed for striking out the defence of the respondent. But the same has been dismissed by the trial court stating that respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner in his written statement. He said that even on denying such relationships, the respondent is bound to deposit the entire arrears of alleged rent so also the recurring monthly rent of the accommodation to defend the case on the ground of eviction of the Act and if such sum is not deposited in accordance with the provision of Section 13 of the Act, then the right to defend available to the respondent on the grounds of eviction enumerated under Clauses of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act deserves to be struck down and prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing his application, the defence of the respondent be stuck down/out by admitting and allowing this petition.

On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri M.K. Chaturvedi, by justifying the impugned order said that in the lack of prima facie evidence on record showing the relationships of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent-defendant, the defence available under the Act could not be stuck down and in such premises, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He also argued that besides the impugned suit of the petitioner, at the instance of respondent another COS No. 12-A/2009, decided by the Additional District Judge, Pipariya, vide dated 31.3.2011, for declaration to declare the aforesaid sale deed, the document of the title of the petitioner, executed by the father of the respondent to be ab initio void with some other prayer was filed, the same was dismissed, against which F.A. No. 391/2011 at the instance of respondent is pending in this court. So till disposal of such appeal, the respondent is not under obligation to deposit any such arrears or recurring monthly rent of the premises and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully perused the petition alongwith the papers annexed. It is apparent on record that the impugned suit has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff as landlord of the disputed accommodation for eviction against the respondent-defendant on some ground available under Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act. It is also apparent that before filing the suit, in response of demand notice of the petitioner to the respondent within the prescribed period of two months, the sum of arrears of rent was neither paid nor tendered by the respondent. Even after receiving the summon of the suit within one month as per requirement of Section 13(1) of the Act, such amount has not been deposited and subsequently recurring monthly rent of the accommodation is also not being deposited by the respondent.

It is settled proposition of law that whenever any plaintiff like the petitioner stating himself to be the landlord files a suit for eviction on any of the grounds available under all or any of the Clauses of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act against the tenant like respondent, then even on denying the relationship of landlord and tenant by defendant in his written statement, if he wants to defend the case on the grounds of Section enumerated u/s 12(1) of the Act, then he is under obligation to deposit the arrears of rent and also the recurring rent in accordance with Section 13(1) of the Act, failing in depositing the same, the aforesaid right of defence against the grounds of eviction under the Act deserves to be struck down.

In such premises, on establishing that the said arrears of the rent and recurring monthly rent has not been deposited by the respondent-defendant as per Section 13(1) of the Act, then the application filed by the petitioner u/s 13(6) of the Act for striking out such defence of the respondent ought to have been allowed and defence of the respondent should have been struck down.

In the aforesaid premises, the trial court has committed grave error, perversity, irregularity, illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order being not sustainable deserves to be set aside by allowing the aforesaid application of the petitioner and pursuant to it, the defence available to the respondent-defendant under the Act deserves to be stuck down. In such premises, he may contest and defend the case only on general grounds available to him, but not on the ground of Section 12(1) of the Act. It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty in the matter to prove his projected case that he is not a tenant of the petitioner in the premises and there is no relationship as landlord and tenant between petitioner and him.

So far other arguments of the respondent''s counsel that his suit filed for declaration to declare the aforesaid sale deed the title document of the petitioner to be ab initio void with some other prayer is pending in the first appeal in this court at his instance is concerned, it is settled proposition that every civil suit is decided on the basis of its own recorded evidence. In such premises, the pendency of the appeal against dismissal of the respondent''s suit could not be a ground or foundation to dismiss the aforesaid petitioner''s application of Section 13(6) of the Act in his eviction suit.

In view of aforesaid discussion, by allowing this petition the impugned order dated 18.3.2011, (Ann. P-1) is hereby set aside and the application of the petitioner filed u/s 13(6) of the Act is hereby allowed. Consequently, defence of the respondent, available with respect of the ground of eviction under Clauses of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act in the impugned suit is struck down. There shall be no order as to the cost. C c as per rules.