RAM KHILADI PARASHAR Vs. HOTILAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Consitution of India, aggrieved by an order dated 22.2.2010 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No. 12-A/07, whereby directed that the petitioner/defendant can cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses except on the ground mentioned under section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as his defence against eviction has already been struck out.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in the trial Court for arrears of rent and eviction of the defendant/tenant on the ground under section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (1)(e) of the Act. In this case, as per the provisions of section 13 (1) of the Act, the defendant/tenant has not deposited the entire arrears of rent in the trial Court and also not deposited the monthly accrued rent within specified period, hence, the trial Court has struck out the defence of the defendant/tenant as per provisions of section 13 (6) of the Act. Thereafter, trial Court has also given direction to the defendant that he can only cross examine the plaintiff and his witnesses except on the ground provided under section 12 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the petitioner/defendant came up before this Court by this petition.

(3.) Similar view has also been taken by division Bench of this Court in Kewal Kumar Sharma v. Satish Chandra Gothi and another, 1991 JabLJ 86 also.