Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 683 (MP)

Ram Khiladi Parashar v. Hotilal Gupta

2010-07-13

S.K.GANGELE, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
ORDER 1. The petitioner has files this petition under Article 277 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by an order dated 22.2.2010 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No. 12-A/17, whereby directed that the petitioner/defendant can cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses except on the ground mentioned under section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as his defence against eviction has already been struck out. 2. Brief facts of the case are the respondent/plaintiff has files a suit in the trail Court for arrears of rent and eviction For the appellant the defendant/tenant on the ground under section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1) (e) of the Act. In this case, as per the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act, the defendant/tenant has not deposited the entire arrears of rent in the trail Court and also not deposited the monthly accrued rent within specified period, hence, the trial Court has struck out the defence of the defendant/tenant as per provisions of section 13 (6) of the Act. Thereafter, trial Court has also given direction to the defendant that he can only cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses except on the ground provided under section 12 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the petitioner/defendant came up before this Court by this petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that admittedly the defence of the petitioner/defendant has been struck out by the trial Court as per the provisions of section 13 (6) of the Act because of non-compliance of the provisions provided under section 13 (1) of the Act for deposit of the entire arrears of rent in the trial Court and also on the ground that defendant/tenant has also not deposited regularly the monthly rent of the suit premises. Now, the only question remains for consideration that after striking out of the defence of the defendant/tenant up-to what extent the defendant/tenant can lead evidence in the trial Court. Now, the only question remains for consideration that after striking out of the defence of the defendant/tenant up-to what extent the defendant/tenant can lead evidence in the trial Court. This point has already been considered and decided by the apex Court in the case of Modula India v. Kamaksdhya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 SC 162 , wherein under the similar situation when the defence of the defendant/tenant has been struck out with regard to non-compliance of the provisions for deposit of the rent in the Court, the Hon'ble apex Court while dealing with the similar provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 held in para 12 with regard to the scope of cross-examination on the plaintiff's witness by the defendant whose defence has been struck out, herein as under : "For the above reasons, we agree with the view of Ramendra Mohan Datta, ACJ, that even in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off under section 17 (4) of the Act, the defendant, subject to the exercise ofan appropriate discretion by the Court on the facts of a particular case, would generally by entitled. (a) to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses; and (b) to address argument on the basis of the plaintiffs case. We would like to make it clear that the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weakness of the plaintiff's case. In no circumstances should the cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant's case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiff's witnesses." 5. Similar view has also been taken by division Bench of this Court in Kewal Kumar Sharma v. Satish Chandra Gothi and another, 1991 JLJ 86 also. 6. Considering the aforesaid case law on the point, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order can be modified and a direction can be given to the trial Court to allow the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and his whiteness on the truthfulness of the assertion made by them in support of . 7. Consequently, writ petition is allowed in part. 7. Consequently, writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent that trial Court will permit the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses on the truthfulness of their statements to the extent as indicated by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Modula (supra). 8. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.