ANEESH KUMAR VINAYAK Vs. SMT. SAVITA POKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the parties are at loggerheads on the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29.08.2017, whereby the application of plaintiff filed under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is allowed and right to file defence is struck-of by the Court below.

(2.) Criticizing this order, Mr. Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below by order dated 18.09.2015 fixed the provisional rent as Rs.600/- per month and directed the present petitioner to deposit the rent as per the directions contained in the said order. The respondent/plaintiff filed a cryptic application dated 20.12.2016 and contended that the said order dated 18.09.2015 has not been complied with. In turn, the petitioner/defendant filed a detailed reply dated 07.04.2017 and demonstrated that requisite rent has already been deposited and thereafter the respondent is regularly depositing the rent in CCD. Mr. Maindiretta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no discussion at all in the impugned order regarding the genuineness of the defence taken by the petitioner. In other words, it is submitted that the Court below reproduced the stand of the parties followed by reproduction of the relevant provision and thereafter jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated Section 13 of the said Act. No reasons are assigned as to why the petitioner's defence was not trustworthy.

(3.) Per-contra, Mr. R.S. Mehndiratta, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He submits that the amount deposited by the petitioner was not adequate and was not in consonance with the order dated 18.09.2015.