Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sankata Devi Verma vs Jagdish Singh Chandel on 12 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)MPLJ497, 1999 A I H C 2795, (1999) 2 RENCJ 358 (1999) 1 MPLJ 497, (1999) 1 MPLJ 497
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
Shri C.K. Swarnkar, learned counsel for applicant.
Shri S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the non-applicant.
1. The applicant/landlady, being aggrieved by the order dated 19-11-1997, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA), Jabalpur rejecting her application filed under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, has filed this revision petition.
2. The applicant/landlady moved an application under Section 23-A before the Rent Controlling Authority seeking eviction of the non-applicant inter alia pleading that she is the landlady and the non-applicant is the tenant. The tenant after seeking leave to defend filed his written statement and controverting the allegations made by the landlady stated that he is not the tenant and is not answerable to the present applicant. Having denied the relationship between the parties, the tenant did not choose to deposit the rent. The landlady thereafter filed an application under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. By the order impugned, the lower Court has rejected the application saying that as the relationship of landlady and tenant has been challenged and denied, it was not necessary to deposit the rent and defence could not be struck out. The applicant/landlady has filed this revision, being aggrieved by the said order.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that to save the defences available under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, a tenant is duty bound to deposit the rent and if he does not do so, his defence is liable to be struck out under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
On the other hand, Shri Mishra learned counsel for non-applicant submits that as he had challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant, it was not necessary for the non-applicant to deposit the rent.
4. I have heard the parties at length.
Section 23-H of M.P. Accommodation Control Act provides that the provisions of Section 13 shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of an application for recovery of possession of accommodation under Section 23-A and in respect of proceeding for revision under Section 23-E against final order by the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-C or under Section 23-D as they apply to a suit or proceeding instituted on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12. As the provisions of Section 13 have been applied mutatis mutandis to the proceedings instituted under Section 23-A, a tenant is obliged to deposit the rent in a suit (application before the RCA) within one month from the date of service of summons. If in such a matter a dispute relating to rate of rent, quantum of rent or arrears of rent is raised, then the Court/RCA is required to decide the dispute as provided under Section 13(2) of the Act. If in any proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 read with Section 23-H there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the Court may direct the tenant to deposit with the Court the amount payable by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 13, and in such a case, no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of deposit until the Court decides the disputes and makes an order for payment of the same. Section 13(6) provides that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by Section 13, the Court may order the defence against the eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be.
5. From a bare perusal of sub-section (6) of Section 13 it would appear that there must be a failure on part of the tenant to deposit or pay the amount as required by the section. In a case where an application under Section 13(6) is moved, it is bounden duty of the Court/RCA to see whether a dispute under Section 13(2) or 13(3) has been raised either in the pleadings or by a separate application. If there is any dispute raised either under Section 13(2) or Section 13(3) of the Act, the Court is duty bound and obliged to decide the said dispute. If the Court decides the dispute and directs the tenant to make the payment or deposit the amount in the Court, then the tenant would be obliged to observe the spirit of the order passed by the Court. It is only on failure of the defendant to comply with the orders passed under Section 13(2) or 13(3) of the Act, he can be visited with the penalty under Section 13(6) of the Act.
6. It does not appear from the record or from the order passed by the trial Court that it had taken any steps to decide the dispute falling under Section 13(3) of the Act. So long as the dispute raised under Section 13(3) is not decided, an application filed under Section 13(6) neither can be allowed nor can be rejected.
7. The order passed by the Court below deserves to and is accordingly set aside as it has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 13(3).
8. The RCA is directed to decide the dispute raised by the tenant relating to the relationship of the parties. It shall be within the discretion of the RCA to direct the non-applicant/tenant to deposit the amount. If such a direction is issued, the RCA in view of the language employed in Section 13(3) shall further direct that plaintiff shall not be permitted to withdraw the rent to be deposited by the tenant. If the tenant fails to observe any order passed by the trial Court while deciding the dispute raised under Section 13(3), then the landlady's application filed under Section 13(6) may be taken up for consideration.
The revision, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.