Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 47 (MP)

Ramprasad v. Shashi

2007-01-15

N.K.MODY

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2005 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Ratlam in Civil Regular Appeal No. 10-A/2005 whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.4.2005 passed by II Civil Judge, Class I, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 419-A/2003 was reversed and the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts giving raise to this appeal are that on 1.7.2002 respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant alleging that the appellant is tenant of the respondent in the suit accommodation which is situated at 16/428, Subash Marg, Hospital Road, Ratlam vide rent note dated 6.4.1984 @ Rs. 200/- per month. It was alleged that the appellant was tenant of Smt. Gyatridevi who was predecessor-in-title of respondent. Since the appellant failed to pay the rent, hence Smt. Gyatridevi filed the suit for eviction which was numbered as 15-A/1993 in the Court of III Civil Judge, Class II, Ratlam. It was alleged that since the rent was deposited by the appellant, therefore, the said suit was dismissed on 23.10.1996. It was further alleged that during pendency of the suit Smt. Gyatridevi mother of respondent died. Against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1996 the father of respondent filed appeal which was numbered as 1-A/1997 and was dismissed by II Additional District Judge, Ratlam on 6.9.1997. Further case of the respondent was that vide notice dated 7.6.2000 appellant was informed to pay the rent but inspite of that rent was neither paid nor tendered. On the contrary the notice was wrongly replied. It was alleged that the appellant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.3.2001 which has not been paid inspite of notice issued on 26.3.2002. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings a decree of eviction was prayed under section 12 (1) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act"). 3. The suit was contensted by the appellant by filing the written statement wherein the plaint allegations were denied. It was submitted that the rent has been deposited by the appellant regularly. It was also submitted that appellant has deposited the rent in advance. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. 3. The suit was contensted by the appellant by filing the written statement wherein the plaint allegations were denied. It was submitted that the rent has been deposited by the appellant regularly. It was also submitted that appellant has deposited the rent in advance. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and dismissed the suit against which an appeal was filed which was allowed and decree was passed in favour of respondent with a further direction to appellant to vacate the suit accommodation and pay the rent with effect from 1.3.2001. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned appellate Court the present appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no arrears at any point of time against the appellant. It is submitted that the entire arrears of rent was deposited by the appellant. It is submitted that receipts of rent were submitted by the appellant but the same has not been taken into consideration by the learned appellate Court. In the memo of appeal it is submitted that from 4.1.2001 to 14.1.2005 a sum of Rs. 14,000/- has been deposited by the appellant vide receipt numbers mentioned in the appeal. 6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the suit for eviction which was filed by predecessor-in-title of respondent was dismissed on 23.10.1996 against which the appeal was filed which was also dismissed on 6.9.1997 inspite of disposal of suit and appeal the rent was deposited by the appellant in that appeal. 7. In the case where the tenant is in arrears of rent, a notice of demand has been issued by landlord, it is the duty of tenant to tender the rent to the landlord within a period of two months. Where the landlord does not accept the rent, then the tenant is having the remedy to deposit the rent with the Rent Controlling Authority under section 25 of the Act. In the present case inspite of disposal of suit and the appeal filed by predecessor in-title of respondent, appellant continued to deposit the rent in that suit. Where the landlord does not accept the rent, then the tenant is having the remedy to deposit the rent with the Rent Controlling Authority under section 25 of the Act. In the present case inspite of disposal of suit and the appeal filed by predecessor in-title of respondent, appellant continued to deposit the rent in that suit. In the matter of Abdul Kader v. G.D. Govindraj [2002 (II) MPWN 129], Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where the rent was not deposited in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the landlord is entitled for decree for eviction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality has been committed by learned appellate Court in decreeing the suit which can be corrected by this Court in second appeal. In view of this, appeal stands dismissed.