Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 732 (MP)

Vishan Chand Jain v. Mahendra Kumar Mangal

2015-07-16

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER Arya, J. -- 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has approached this Court challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the trial Court. 2. By the impugned order, the trial Court has addressed upon the question of law as regards scope, extent and limit of the right of cross-examination of defendant in a landlord-tenant suit after his defence has been struck off under section 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) for non-compliance of provisions as contained in section 13(1) of the Act of 1961. The trial Court has held that the defendants are not entitled to cross-examine plaintiffs or their witnesses in the context of grounds of eviction enumerated under section 12(1) of the Act of 1961 and likewise they cannot raise a plea of defence in that behalf. Accordingly, the trial Court has held that the defendants have a limited right of cross-examination. 3. In fact the law as regards right of cross-examination by defendants in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo [ AIR 1989 SC 162 ], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of West Bengal Tenancy Act has held as under :- “For the above reasons, we agree with the view of Ramendra Mohan Dutta, ACJ, that, even in a case where the defence against delivery of possession of a tenant is struck off under section 17(4) [sick] section 17(3) of the Act, the defendant, subject to the exercise of an appropriate discretion by the Court on the facts of a particular case, would generally be entitled : (a) to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses; and (b) to address argument on the basis of the plaintiff’s 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 weaknesses 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.” 4. 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.” 4. Law as regards extent, dimension and limit of right of crossexamination of the defendant in the event of striking off the defence under section 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act has been lucidly and vividly laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kewal Kumar Sharma v. Satish Chandra Gothi and another [ 1991 JLJ 86 ], relying on the leading case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court viz. Modula India (supra), wherein it is held that defendant, whose defence against eviction is struck out in a suit for eviction on grounds under the Rent Act, can cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses and address the Court on the basis of plaintiff’s case with a view to point out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff’s case. That apart, defendant/tenant can still contest the issues which are not based upon any of the grounds of eviction mentioned in the Rent Act. Besides, if a suit for eviction is based on arrears of rent under section 12(1)(a) of the Act and the defence is struck out in terms of section 13(6) of the Act for non-payment of reasonable provisional rent as fixed under section 13(2) of the Act, still the tenant shall be entitled to contest the issue as regards the quantum of rent, which is different from the ground upon which eviction may be sought under section 12(1) of the Act. 5. In the instant case, the trial Court by the impugned order has held that the petitioners/defendants have a limited right of cross-examination, but the extent thereof since is not explicit from the impugned order, hence, in the context of aforesaid enunciation of law the defendants’ right of cross-examination shall be on the same terms as held in the cases of Modula India (supra), and Kewal Kumar Sharma (supra), and if the suit is contested on any other ground apart from the grounds of eviction under section 12(1) of the Act, on such issue defendants shall be entitled to lead evidence and cross-examine plaintiffs and their witnesses. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.