Full Judgment
Second Appeal No.1398 / 2012 (Murlidhar versus Pawan Kumar Jain) 19-02-2013 Heard Shri A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.
The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-11-2012 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Satna, in C.A.No.37A/2011, confirming and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28-2-2011 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-II, Satna, in C.S.No.112A/2010 by which the suit for eviction filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant has been decreed under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that initially the suit for eviction had been filed by the respondent against the appellant on the grounds mentioned under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act for arrears of rent and 12(1)(f) of the Act for bona fide requirement of the accommodation for business purpose but the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent only on the grounds mentioned in Section 12(1)(f) of the Act.
It is submitted that on appeal being filed by the appellant, the appellate Court, while setting aside the eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, has decreed the suit on the grounds under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act for arrears of rent.
The learned counsel for the appellant, after taking recouRs.to the statement of the landlord/plaintiff himself and the record of the Court below, has submitted that the suit filed by the respondent was on the ground of arrears of rent for ten months prior to filing of the suit but admittedly the rent relating to the period of ten months prior to the filing of the suit was deposited by the appellant and in such circumstances, he is not in arrears of rent and, therefore, the decree for eviction passed by the fiRs.appellate Court under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, being perveRs.and erroneous deserves to be set aside.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree of the fiRs.appellate Court.
From a perusal of paragraph 46 of the appellate Court's judgment it is clear that the Court has decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant, after passing of the decree by the Court below dated 28-2-2011, failed to deposit rent as required by the provisions of Section 13 of the Act and did not file any application for extending the period for depositing the same as required by Section 13 of the Act and, therefore, the Court, relying on the provisions of Section 12(1)(a).12(3) and (13) of the Act has passed the decree against him.
It is further clear that the details regarding default committed by the appellant mentioned in paragraph 46 of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court is based on the averments made by the appellant himself in his application dated 10-10-2012 filed by him before the fiRs.appellate Court.
A perusal of the said application, which is on record, makes it clear that after passing of the decree by the appellate Court on 28-2-2011 though the appeal had been filed by the appellant in the month of April, 2011, he made deposit of arrears of rent of Rs.2736/- for the fiRs.time on 1-12-2011, Rs.3192/- on 20-9-2012 and Rs.2736/- on 24-9-2012.
It is further clear from the application, specifically paragraph 4 thereof, that the appellant, in spite of not depositing the arrears in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act has stated that he was regularly depositing the rent and has only sought for extending the time for depositing the rent for the months of January, 2011 to June, 2011.
Provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act are in the following terms :- “No order for the eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub- section (1).if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 13: Provided that no tenant shall be entitled to the benefit under this sub-section, if, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any accommodation, he again makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for three consecutive months.”
The provisions of the aforesaid section makes it clear that a decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act for arrears of rent shall not be made against the tenant if he makes payment or deposits the rent as required by Section 13; provided, that benefit of the aforesaid protection would be available to the tenant only once and if he makes default in payment of rent again for three consecutive months, he would not be entitled for protection under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act.
Section 13 of the Act requires the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent of an accommodation in question in a suit for eviction within one month of the institution of the suit or appeal or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf and thereafter continue to deposit the rent month by month by 15th of each succeeding month.
In the instant case, admittedly, the appeal against the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court was filed against the appellant before the fiRs.appellate Court in the month of April, 2011 but he failed to make payment or deposit the rent as stipulated and provided under Section 13 of the Act and in fact in accordance with his own assertion, he deposited part of the rent for the fiRs.time on 1-5-2011.
Admittedly, even though the entire arrears was not deposited till 1-12-2011 the appellant even thereafter, continued to make default in payment of the rent by 15th of each month and made the next deposit of the part of the arrears on 20-9-2012 and remaining part of the arrears on 24-9-2012 and did not make any application seeking extention of time as provided in Section 13.
Even in the application dated 10-10-2012 filed by him before the fiRs.appellate Court he has only prayed for extending the time for depositing the arrears of rent for the months of January, 2011 to June 2011 and no more.
From the aforesaid facts, which are undisputed and based on the averments of the appellant himself, it is clear that the appellant has not made payment or deposited the rent as required by Section 13 of the Act and has also committed such default for a continuous long period of time without seeking any leave or condonation of the delay in deposit.
In the circumstances, the appellate Court, on the basis of the averments of the appellant himself made in his application dated 10-10-2012, has passed the decree of eviction against the appellant.
From a perusal of the facts as well as the provisions of law it is clear that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and decree, more so, in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jamnalal and others v.
Radheshyam, (2000) 4 SCC 38.as well as by this Court in the cases of Sushila Shrivastava v.
Nafees Ahamed and another, 2001(2) MPLJ 61 and Harishankar Sharma v.
Shrikrishan Dubey 2008(1) MPLJ 614
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no substantial question of law arising for adjudication in the present appeal and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S.Jha) Judge mct