RAM DAYAL Vs. MATHURA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit based on landlord and tenant relationship filed by the plaintiff/respondent claiming arrears of rent and mesne profits w.e.f 1.9.73 and consequent ejectment under Section 12(1)(a) M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for failure to comply with demand-cum-quit notice, has been decreed by the Courts below. The rent-note is dated 9.5.72.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff/respondent was that the defendant/appellant was his tenant under rent-note dated 9.5.72 and in arrears w.e.f. 1.9.73. The case was contested by the defendant/appellant raising a plea that the suit property belonged to him which was nominally transferred to the plaintiff under a sale-deed which in fact was a devise for securing payment of a loan taken by the appellant from the respondent and the rent-note dated 9.5.72 was nothing but a device for securing payment of interest at the rate of two per cent in the written statement and found the case of the plaintiff proved.

(3.) THE benefit of the Act has not been claimed by the defendant/appellant by raising any plea in the written statement attracting applicability of the Act. That is why, none of the Courts below was called upon to adjudicate upon this issue. The reason is not far to seek. It is well settled that the Act applies only to such debts as subsist on the appointed day and not to others. See, Mangilal v. Mittilal, 1978 M.P.L.J. 234, Aan Mohammed v. Chunnilal, 1978-I M.P.W.N. 189 and Channilal v. Bundelal, 1972 M.P.L.J. 756. It would, therefore, not apply to debt incurred after the appointed date. The appointed date for Scheduled Caste is 15th March, 1967 and for Scheduled Tribes it is 15th August, 1973. See Parasmal Jain v. Addl. Collector, Bastar, 1982 M.P.W.N. 458. In the present case though it has been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that the defendant is a 'Jatav' yet the applicability of the Act is not attracted because liability in the suit came into existence after the appointed date and was not subsisting on that date. The question of law on which the appeal has been admitted for hearing the parties, did not, therefore, arise for decision in the appeal.