ROHIT MAHESHWARI Vs. DHRUV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenge is made to an order dated 22-4-2003 by which delay in deposit of rent made by respondent-tenant has been condoned.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is landlord of the suit property and has filed a suit for eviction against the respondent after issuing notice on 6-2-2001 claiming arrears of rent from 1-11-98. Case of the petitioner is that when in spite of notice rent was not paid suit was filed and when notice was issued defendant appeared in the Trial Court on 4-7-2001 and filed his written statement on 29-9-2001, did not deposit the rent being Rs. 300/- per month. However, defendant deposited the rent as due from 1-11-1998. Thereafter when rent was not paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (1) of the MP. Accommodation Control Act and when the suit was at the stage of final hearing on 18-2-2003 respondent moved an application vide Annexure p-4 under Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act praying for condoning the delay in payment of rent. Even though the application was opposed by the petitioner this application has been allowed and delay in payment of rent has been condoned. It is the case of the petitioner that under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act the Court is not empowered to condone the delay and, therefore, the order impugned condoning the delay is unsustainable having been passed contrary to the provisions of law.

(3.) IT was submitted by Shri Sanjeev Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Section 13 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act two obligations are entailed on a tenant. First he has to deposit the rent which is due prior to filing of the suit within one month of service of notice or such further time as the Court may allow and thereafter the second condition is that he has to deposit rent before the 15th day of every month. It was submitted by shri Jain that respondent having not deposited the rent in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jamnalal Vs. Radheshyam, reported in 2000 (4) M. P. H. T. 218 (SC) = 2000 (2) MPLJ 385, so also in B. C. Kame Vs. Nemi Chand Jain, reported in AIR 1970 SC 981, failure to deposit the rent within stipulated period entitles the landlord to seek eviction on that ground and the Court was not competent to condone the delay. By filing a detailed written submission learned Counsel has tried to emphasis that when the statutory provisions contemplates certain things to be done in particular manner it has to be done strictly in accordance thereof and if the procedure is not followed consequences have to follow. It was submitted by him that in the fact and circumstances of the case the learned Court has no jurisdiction or authority to condone the delay.