Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parvat Singh vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Thr on 20 January, 2016
1
W.P.No.398/2016 (Parvat Singh and another vs. Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti and another)
20-01-2016
Shri Pawan Vijayvargiya, Advocate for the petitioners.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order passed by the trial Court
dated 19/10/2015 in civil suit No.4A/2015 dismissing an
application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC filed by the
defendants'/tenants'/petitioners'.
Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to
the effect that the plaintiffs'/respondents', a society constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 have filed eviction suit against the tenants'/petitioners' under Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. During pendency of the suit realizing that the aforesaid suit is barred by section 3(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act of 1961, application for treating the suit under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has been filed. The aforesaid amendment has been allowed and accordingly, the suit now treated under the aforesaid provision of the Transfer of Property Act.
Defendants'/tenants'/petitioners' have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC alleging that since the suit is barred under the Rent Control Act, hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
In view of the fact that earlier application has been allowed for treating the suit as one under Transfer of Property Act,1882, therefore, the objection on behalf of the 2 W.P.No.398/2016 (Parvat Singh and another vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and another) defendants'/petitioners was not entertained. Accordingly, trial Court rejected the application.
Counsel for the petitioners' contends that as the averments made in the suit are with respect to the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1961, the objections filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC ought to have been entertained and considered on merits by the trial Court.
Once the suit has been permitted to be converted and treated as eviction suit under the Transfer of Property Act,1882 in the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid objection has rightly been found not sustainable for dismissal of the suit on the strength of application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC. Whether averments made in the suit are relevant for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a question on merits to be decided after parties lead evidence in that behalf.
Writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge b/-