Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hema Alias Hemlata Bhandari vs Surendra Kumar Chabara on 12 December, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32825
1 MP-504-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 504 of 2025
HEMA ALIAS HEMLATA BHANDARI AND OTHERS
Versus
SURENDRA KUMAR CHABARA
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - learned Counsel for petitioners- plaintiffs.
Shri Rohit Bansal- learned Counsel for respondent- defendant.
ORDER
The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the Third Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vidisha in RCSA No. 19 of 2024, whereby the application of the defendant under Section 13(2) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and fixing the provisional rent of the suit property has been allowed.
2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the eviction of the defendant from a shop situated at the ground floor of Nakoda Complex, Madhav Ganj, Ward No. 22, Vidisha. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had been inducted as a tenant in the shop on 01.01.2012, at a monthly rent of Rs. 5000/-, which was to be increased by 15% every three years. The defendant had been paying the rent regularly until 06.02.2020, after which the rent went into arrears. Despite repeated requests by the plaintiffs, the defendant failed to pay the arrears and also refused to vacate the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12/17/2025 12:29:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32825 2 MP-504-2025 premises. On 23.10.2023, the plaintiffs sent a notice of demand for rent and eviction. However, the defendant neither paid the outstanding rent nor vacated the premises. Subsequently, the defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code on 23.07.2024, claiming that he had been in the United States due to health issues. The trial court, by order dated 25.07.2024, allowed the application. On 20.08.2024, the defendant filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Act, disputing the rate of rent and alleging that the rent had been reduced to Rs. 1552/- per month as per an earlier agreement. The defendant also claimed to have sent money orders for the payment of rent, but the plaintiffs had refused to accept them. The trial court by order dated 21.10.2024, allowed the defendant's application and fixed the provisional rent at Rs. 1500/- per month. Hence, this petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned trial court erred in law by fixing the provisional rent without conducting any proper inquiry or giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contended that the defendant's own version shows that the rent was Rs. 5000/- per month, with a 15% increase every three years, and any modification in the rent should have been based on proper evidence and inquiry. It is further contended that the trial court's order fixing the provisional rent at Rs. 1500/- per month was arbitrary and did not take into account the agreed rent of Rs.5000/- per month. It is further contended that the trial court should have conducted an inquiry and taken into consideration the rent receipts, lease agreements, and other evidence before fixing the provisional rent. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Ramphal Rajak v. Govind Prasad (2000) 2 MPWN 91 , to submit that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for a summary inquiry on the rent, and the provisional rent should be fixed accordingly.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12/17/2025 12:29:28 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32825 3 MP-504-2025
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant opposed the petition and contended that the trial court's order is correct and in accordance with law. Rent was reduced to Rs. 1552/- per month as per the earlier lease agreement, and the defendant had sent money orders to the plaintiffs for the payment of rent, which were not accepted by the plaintiffs. The provisional rent has been fixed in accordance with the terms of the lease, and the trial court has considered the facts and documents appropriately. He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed a serious error of law by fixing the provisional rent at Rs.1500/- per month without conducting a proper inquiry. The petitioners' claim that the rent was fixed at Rs. 5000/- per month, with a 15% increase every three years, is supported by lease agreements and other documents on record. On the other hand, the defendant's contention that the rent was reduced to Rs. 1552/- per month is not supported by sufficient evidence. The defendant's claim regarding the money orders and the failure of the plaintiffs to accept them requires detailed examination. The learned trial court has passed the order fixing provisional rent at Rs. 1500/- per month without examining the factual dispute regarding the rate of rent and without considering the evidence submitted by both parties. It appears that the trial court did not conduct a proper inquiry, which is required under Section 13(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The word "fix reasonable provisional rent" under the Act implies that the Court must conduct a reasonable inquiry to determine the provisional rent based on the facts and evidence presented by both parties.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12/17/2025 12:29:28 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32825 4 MP-504-2025
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for a summary inquiry into the rate of rent. The trial court should consider all the relevant documents, including the lease agreements, money orders, affidavits, and other evidence, and then fix the provisional rent in a reasonable manner.
6. For the reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to conduct a summary inquiry regarding the rate of rent. After considering all the relevant evidence, the trial court shall fix the provisional rent accordingly. The trial court shall complete the inquiry and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of this order.
7. The Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12/17/2025 12:29:28 PM