Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 374 (MP)

Shivaji Rao Tambat v. Parwat Kannojiya

2025-06-30

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

body2025
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief : (i) The orders dated 30.10.2023 & 13.3.2024 annexureP/1 colly may kindly be quashed/set aside; (ii) It is directed to learned trial Court to fix date for deciding the provisional rent in summary proceeding; and fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1). (iii) It is directed to learned trial Court that after deciding the provisional rent, decided afresh application under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. (iv) Cost of this petition may kindly be awarded; and (v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is incumbent upon the trial Court, in cases under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, to decide the provisional rent under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act where the rate of rent is disputed but in the present case, since the trial Court has not decided the provisional rent, an application under section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was filed by him, which was rejected vide order dated 30.10.2023. Since the provisional rent has not been decided under section 13(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Act; therefore, he has filed an application for deciding it but that application has also been rejected vide order dated 13.3.2024 observing that the plaintiff ought to get decide the provisional rent from RAC (Rent Control Act) and it is also observed that the authority to determine the rent lies only with the RCA. There is no provision in the Act, 1961 for ascertainment of rent by the Court. This observation is erroneous.; therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and under the application under section 13(2) of the Act. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that though he is under obligation to deposit the rent but the amount of provisional rent would be first decided by the learned Trial Court under the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act, 1961 and after deciding such rent, he is under obligation to pay it. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that though he is under obligation to deposit the rent but the amount of provisional rent would be first decided by the learned Trial Court under the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act, 1961 and after deciding such rent, he is under obligation to pay it. Thereafter, in case of any default, the plaintiff would be entitled to file an application under section 13(6) of the Act. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record reveals that the provision of section 13(2) of the Act, 1961 is as follows : "If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall, on a plea made either by landlord or tenant in that behalf which shall be taken at the earliest opportunity during such suit or proceeding, fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (1) and no Court shall, save for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain any plea on this account at any subsequent stage." 5. The full bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Chhogalal v. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarain ( 1975 MPLJ 657 ) is relevant paragraph-8 of which is reproduced as under : 8. Sub-section (2) of section 13, in so far as material, provides that if there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation." The sub-section is silent regarding the manner in which the dispute should be raised. The only requirement of this provision is that there should be a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant The moment this requirement is fulfilled, it becomes the duty of the Court to fix a reasonable-provisional rent. Having regard to the language of the provision, if the tenant has raised the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by him in the written statement, that would be sufficient for purposes of the sub-section. A dispute so raised will make it obligatory on the Court to fix the reasonable provisional rent. Having regard to the language of the provision, if the tenant has raised the dispute as to the amount of rent payable by him in the written statement, that would be sufficient for purposes of the sub-section. A dispute so raised will make it obligatory on the Court to fix the reasonable provisional rent. No further action on the part of the tenant, such as making of an application or inviting the attention of the Court to the Specific dispute or specifically asking the Court to fix the provisional rent, is needed to cast an obligation on the Court to fix the reasonable provisional rent, for the simple reason that the sub-section does not say that the tenant should file a separate application or specifically pray for fixation of provisional rent. In Jivrambhai v. Amar Singh (supra), p. 768 written it has been statement, rightly observed that "if the dispute has been raised in the on the Court cannot refuse to determine provisional rent certain the ground that a separate application has not been made". There are observations In Firm Ganeshram Hari vilas v. Ramchandra (supra; proposition No. 1 at p. 789) that it is not enough for the tenant to raise the dispute and in addition he must invite the attention of the Court to the dispute and the Court must be asked to fix a reasonable provisional rent. In our opinion, these observation do not lay down the law correctly as they add certain requirements in sub-section (2) which are not there. If the tenant disputes the rate and amount of rent in his written statement, as was done in the instant case, there arises a dispute within the meaning of sub-section (2) casting a duty on the Court to fix a reasonable provisional rent. The Court is expected to go through the pleadings of the parties for eliciting the matters in dispute and it is not necessary for the tenant to specially draw the attention of the Court that he has disputed the amount or rate of rent. Similarly, it is not necessary for him to specifically ask for fixation of provisional rent. Raising of a dispute in the written statement by itself amounts to an implied request, if any request is at all needed, for fixation of provisional rent. 6. Similarly, it is not necessary for him to specifically ask for fixation of provisional rent. Raising of a dispute in the written statement by itself amounts to an implied request, if any request is at all needed, for fixation of provisional rent. 6. Keeping in view the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act and law laid down in the aforesaid case, it is incumbent on trial Court to fix a reasonable provisional rent which ought to be deposited by the tenant during the pendency of the suit, if the amount of rent is disputed. Therefore, under section 13(2) of the Act, the Trial Court is under an obligation to fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation in question. The Court cannot direct the parties to approach the Rent Control Authority (RCA) to fix a reasonable provisional rent in the pending eviction suit before the civil Court. 7. Consequently, the applications rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2023 and 13.3.2024 are not sustainable. Accordingly, the said orders are set aside, and the Trial Court is directed to fix a reasonable provisional rent in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, 1961. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed in above terms.