RAMAKANT RATNER Vs. GOPAL PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Pipariya in COS No. 7-A/2009, whereby his application filed under Section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short "The Act") for striking out the defence of the respondent- defendant on the grounds of eviction under the Act has been dismissed on the ground that the respondent has denied relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner in his written statement.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record alongwith the averments of the petition argued that the petitioner has filed the impugned suit stating himself to be landlord of the disputed premises on the basis of registered sale deed and after such sale deed, the tenancy of the respondent with the earlier landlord was duly attorned in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent to it, inspite giving the demand notice to the respondent for the sum of arrears of rent inspite service of the same within two months such sum of arrears was neitherpaid nor sent to the petitioner by the respondent. Even after receiving the summon of the suit by the respondent within 30 days in accordance with the provision of Section 13 (1) of Act, the entire arrears of the rent was neither paid nor deposited. The regular recurring rent of such accommodation is also not being deposited, on which the impugned application under Section 13 (6) of the Act was filed for striking out the defence of the respondent. But the same has been dismissed by the trial court stating that respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner in his written statement. He said that even on denying such relationships, the respondent is bound to deposit the entire arrears of alleged rent so also the recurring monthly rent of the accommodation to defend the case on the ground of eviction of the Act and if such sum is not deposited in accordance with the provision of Section 13 of the Act, then the right to defend available to the respondent on the grounds of eviction enumerated under Clauses of Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Act deserves to be struck down and prayed to set aside the impugned order by allowing his application, the defence of the respondent be stuck down/out by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, Shri M.K. Chaturvedi, by justifying the impugned order said that in the lack of prima facie evidence on record showing the relationships of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent- defendant, the defence available under the Act could not be stuck down and in such premises, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. He also argued that besides the impugned suit of the petitioner, at the instance of respondent another COS No. 12-A/2009, decided by the Additional District Judge, Pipariya, vide dated 31.3.2011, for declaration to declare the aforesaid sale deed, the document of thetitle of the petitioner, executed by the father of the respondent to be ab initio void with some other prayer was filed, the same was dismissed, against which F.A. No. 391/2011 at the instance of respondent is pending in this court. So till disposal of such appeal, the respondent is not under obligation to deposit any such arrears or recurring monthly rent of the premises and prayed for dismissal of this petition.