Smt. Reena Khatuja vs Murari Lal Sharma

Brij Kishore Dube, J.—This Civil Revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed by the revisionist/defendant against the impugned order dated 17-8-2012 passed by IX Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 38-A/2012, whereby her application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has argued that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist from the suit shop. The notice of demand was served on 13-3-2012, while suit for eviction has been filed on 7-5-2012, before the expiry of the period of two months from the date of serving of the notice, therefore, the suit was premature and decree u/s 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") cannot to be granted. The learned Trial Court by rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC committed grave error of law.

No exhaustive statements of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this revision. Suffice it to state that the respondent/plaintiff has preferred the suit for eviction against the revisionist/defendant on the grounds enumerated u/s 12 (1) (a), 12 (1) (f) and 12 (1) (o) of the Act on 7-5-2012. Before filing this suit, the respondent/plaintiff served a notice for recovery of arrears of rent as well as eviction from the suit shop on 13-3-2012. The defendant filed written statement. Apart from filing the written statement, defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC for dismissing the suit as it was premature.

The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties rejected the application by the impugned order dated 17-8-2012, which reads as under:-

Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act-is relevant and the same reads as under:-

Restriction on eviction of tenants.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-

(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner.

A demand by notice is essential only in the case, where tenancy is desired to be determined on the ground of arrears of rent u/s 12(1) (a) of the Act.

The notice of demand wag served on 13-3-2012 to make the payment of rent within two months. The period of two months was to expire on 13-5-2012. The suit for eviction was filed on 7-5-2012, before the period of two months had expired. Thus, no cause of action for default in paying the arrears of rent had arisen on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, the suit may not to be decreed on that ground. Still, relief can be granted to the plaintiff on the other available grounds as set out in the plaint under Sections 12(1) (f) and 12(1) (o) of the Act, for which it is not a condition precedent to mention the period in the notice sent to the tenant/revisionist under the Act.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court. There is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order that may call for any interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.