DHARAM CHAND Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR TODERMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise an order of Civil Judge, Class II. Murwara, under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, directing the Petitioner -tenants to deposit Rs. 40 per month as rent from the date of the institution of the suit till 31st December 1959.

(2.) IN this petition the contention of the applicant is that the opponents' suit was instituted before 1st January 1959, that is to say, before the coming into force of the M. P, Accommodation Control Act, and that Section 5 could not be applied retrospectively to suits filed before that date. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Prabhudayal v. Suprabhadevi 1956 MLR (Civil) 618 : 1956 MBLJ 390.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opponents was not able to point out any flaw or fallacy in the reasoning given in Prabhudayal's case (1) to persuade me to revise my opinion expressed therein. He, however, urged that the revision petition was not competent as the order made by the learned Civil Judge was one within his jurisdiction and as yet no order terminating the Petitioner's right to defend has been passed. If, as I think, under Section 5 an order for deposit of rent cannot be made in a suit instituted before the 1st January 1959 in regions in which the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act, 1955, was not in force, then it is plain that the order made by the learned Civil Judge directing the Petitioner to deposit the rent amount was wholly illegal. The order with regard to the deposit of rent is, therefore, vitiated by a material illegality. It is true that no order about the striking off of the defence has been made but that cannot preclude the Petitioner from moving this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure when an order with regard to the deposit of rent has actually been made.