Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 749 (MP)

Keshav Dubey v. Chandra Mohan Agnihotri

2007-07-17

SANTANU KEMKAR

body2007
ORDER 1. Though this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendant has called in question the order dated 23.1.2007 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 34-A/2006 allowing the application filed by the respondent plaintiff under section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), thereby striking out his defence. 2. In a suit filed by the respondent plaintiff seeking eviction of the petitioner defendant on the grounds enumerated under section 12 (1) (a) & (c) of the Act, the petitioner defendant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in the 'written statement filed by him. 3. The defendants having failed to deposit or pay the amount of rent claimed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed an application under section 13 (6) of the Act for striking out the defence of the defendant. The said application has been allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.1.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. The only point urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court could not have decided the plaintiff's application under section 13 (6) of the Act without fixing the provisional rent as mandated under section 13 (2) of the Act. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the applicability of section 13 (6) of the Act is not dependant on defendant's admission of relationship of landlord and tenant. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this petition. The question raised in this petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Inderlal Balkiram v. Mahngi Bai Imratlaland others [ AIR 1967 M.P. 163 = 1967 JLJ 31 ] in which a Division Bench has held that the liability of the defendant to make deposit under section 13 (1) of the Act arises the moment a suit for eviction is filed against him by the plaintiff landlord alleging that the defendant is his (plaintiff's) tenant. It makes no difference to the applicability of section 13 (1) whether the defendant admits the relationship of landlord and tenant or denies it. It makes no difference to the applicability of section 13 (1) whether the defendant admits the relationship of landlord and tenant or denies it. In any suit for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned under section 12 of the Act, section 13 of the Act becomes applicable even before the determination of the question whether the defendant is a tenant. 7. In case Kewalram v. Surjeet Singh [ 1981 (II) MPWN 42 = 1981 MPRCJ (4) Note 193] it has been held that in a case where plaintiff claims that defendant is the tenant and he is the owner of the house and the defendant says that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and that he himself is the owner of the house and in such case if the defendant does not deposit rent, the jurisdiction to strike off the defence under subsection (6) of section 13 is immediately attracted. Similar view was also taken in case of Mishri Lal Rathore v. Annapurna Bai [1976 JLJ 12], Smt. Sona Bai and others v. Khoob Chand [ 1992 (II) MPWN 140 = AIR 1993 M.P. 173 ] and Nanak Singh v. Nemibai [ 1985 MPWN 467 ]. 8. In view of the aforesaid, on petitioner's/defendant's denial of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself no enquiry and fixation of provisional rent is required to be done by the trial Court. The trial Court has committed no error in striking out the defendant's defence, however, the defendant would be entitled for defence available to him in general law. 9. The petition stands dismissed, with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.