Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 837 (MP)

Virendra Prajapati v. K. B. Agarwal

2017-07-18

ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI

body2017
ORDER 1. This second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against decree for eviction granted by the learned Courts below, in concurrent manner on the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). 2. Short facts, relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit on grounds under sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) of the Act for eviction of defendant/present appellant from suit accommodation (shop) and recovery of arrears of rent as well as mesne profits mainly with the allegations that the defendant had obtained the suit shop from the plaintiff @ Rs.600 p.m. on rent. It is averred in the plaint that the above said rent was paid up to the period of 31.8.2011 but thereafter same was due and not paid from 1.9.2011 till 30.11.2014 despite raising demand at several times and receiving registered notice sent by the plaintiff on 10.9.2014 prior to filing of the suit. In view of the above facts, the vacant possession of the suit shop with arrears of rent and mesne profit was prayed for by passing a decree for eviction against the defendant-tenant. 3. The defendant/tenant contested the suit. In his written statement it was contended by the defendant that the rate of rent was Rs.250/- per month which was paid at the same rate up to August, 2014 but the plaintiff did not issue any receipt to him. It is further submitted that the suit accommodation was not required bona fide but was instituted with an alternative motive of enhancement of rent. 4. On pleading of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit on all the above mentioned grounds in favour of the plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.1.2016 in Civil Suit No.53-A/2016. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.17-A/2016, which was partly allowed by the first lower appellate Court to the extent of granting decree for eviction on ground enumerated under section 12(1)(a) of the Act with further reliefs of arrears of rent and mense profit. In this manner, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.17-A/2016, which was partly allowed by the first lower appellate Court to the extent of granting decree for eviction on ground enumerated under section 12(1)(a) of the Act with further reliefs of arrears of rent and mense profit. In this manner, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by both the lowers Court are against the settled principles of law. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Jamnalal and others v. Radheshyam, reported in 2000(2) JLJ 1 (SC)= (2000) 4 SCC 380 , to contend that the rate of rent and quantum of arrears of rent were disputed and the learned trial Court vide its interim order dated 12.2.2015 fixed the provisional rent rather deciding quantum of arrears of rent and therefore in that view of the matter, the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act shall not come into play and the decree passed by both the lower Courts under section 12(1)(a) of the Act being not sustainable in law deserves to be set aside. 7. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant at length and perusing the findings recorded by both the lower Courts, it has come on record that the defendant-appellant Virendra Prajapati who examined himself as DW1 clearly admitted in para 10 of his cross-examination that vide receipt Ex.P-8 he had paid rent to the plaintiff landlord up to 31.8.2011 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. Moreover, the said document also bears the signature of the appellant-tenant. Admittedly, the defendant failed to produce any receipt regarding payment of rent after above mentioned period though plaintiff was giving receipts with regard to receiving of rent. Hence, both the Courts have not erred in passing eviction decree and for arrears of rent from 1.9.2011. 8. It has been clearly held by the apex Court in the case of Jamnalal and others (supra), that where the rate of rent and the quantum of arrears of rent are disputed, whole of section 13(1) of the Act becomes inoperative till provisional fixation of monthly rent by the Court under sub-section (ii) of section 13 of the Act, which will govern compliance of section 13(1) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that under section 13(2) of the Act the Court is duty bound only to fix provisionally rent and the learned trial Court vide its interim order dated 12.2.2015 fixed the provisional rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month though the trial Court also directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from August, 2014. It appears that actually the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not support his contention as it has been observed by the apex Court in last lines of para No.15 as follows :- “Therefore, the obligation to pay/deposit the rent for the second and the third period aforementioned, referred to in section 13(1), namely, to deposit rent for the period subsequent to the notice of demand and for the period in which the suit/proceedings will be pending (that is future rent) does not become inoperative for the simple reason that section 13(2) does not contemplate provisional determination of amount of rent payable by the tenant. As resolution of that category of dispute does not fall under section 13(2) the tenant has to take the consequence of non-payment/deposit of rents for the said periods. If he fails in his plea that no arrears are due and the Court finds that the arrears of rent for the period in question were not paid, it has to pass an order of eviction against the tenant as no provision of section 13 of the Act protects him.” 9. Both the lower Courts have recorded findings that the tenant has not complied with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. The lower appellate Court has clearly observed in para 41 that the tenant has not deposited the rent in accordance with the interim order passed by the trial Court on 12.2.2015 and in accordance with the provision of section 13(1) of the Act. Thus, the observation made by the lower appellate Court in last lines of para 39 appears to be based on typing error only because in preceding lines of para 39, the lower appellate Court has specifically mentioned that the appellant had deposited the rent of three months, i.e. April, 2015 to June, 2015 before the Court on 23.6.2015 and thereafter, on 2.4.2016 the tenant deposited rent of six months ranging from October, 2015 to March, 2016. Thus, it is evident that the tenant/defendant has not complied with the provisions of section 13(1) of the Act as he was not thereafter regularly depositing the rent on monthly basis. It further transpires from the record that no any application was filed by the tenant/appellant before the trial Court or lower appellate Court for condonation of defaults committed by him in depositing the rent. Thus, it is clear that both the lower Courts have not committed any error in decreeing the plaintiff's suit on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. 10. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that this appeal does not involve question of law rather than a substantial question of law. 11. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondent has informed this Court on 17.2.2017 that the respondent landlord/plaintiff has obtained the possession of the suit accommodation from the tenant/appellant in execution proceedings. Under these circumstances, even otherwise now nothing survives in the present appeal. 12. Thus, looking from any angle neither this second appeal is maintainable in law nor it suffers from illegality on merits. Even otherwise, it has become infructuous and, therefore, is dismissed in limine. A copy of the order along with record of both the lower Courts be sent back for information.