ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. THAKUR RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.7.2009 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 18-A/09 by which the learned trial Court has directed the tenant/defendant/ respondent to deposit the rent of the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month after deciding the application under section 13 (2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the "Act").

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that on bare perusal of the rent note itself, it is as clear like a noon day that the tenanted premises was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, and therefore, the learned trial Court erred while making summary enquiry for the purpose of adjudicataion of the application under section 13 (2) of the Act and by directing the tenant/respondent to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month.

(3.) On going through the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act, although the scope is limited, but certainly fair adjudication is to be made on the basis of material placed on record. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent that 2828 sq. ft. was given on tenancy basis but, since in the rent note itself a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been agreed to be paid towards monthly rent, therefore, according to us, for the purposes of section 13 (2) of the Act, rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month is required to be deposited by the defendant/respondent. Let the difference of amount be deposited by the defendant/respondent within a period of two months from today. The monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- which shall be deposited by the defendant/respondent can be withdrawn by the plaintiff on furnishing security. The trial Court at the time of final adjudication would decide as to what should be the rate of rent.