SUSHILA DEVI Vs. KHALIL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 12-3-2010 passed by the Trial Court by which the Trial Court has taken on record the counter claim filed by respondent/defendant.

(2.) The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner filed the civil suit seeking the relief of eviction against the respondent defendant on the grounds enumerated under Section 12 (1) (a) and (c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The respondent despite receipt of the summons did not appear and consequently the suit was decreed ex parte on 17-11-2005. However, on an application being made by the defendant, the ex parte decree was set aside. Thereafter, the defendant filed the written statement on 16-1-2008. The plaintiff filed the examination in chief of the witnesses in the form of affidavit on 13-1-2009 and thereafter the case was fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses. On 15-12-2009 the respondent defendant filed the counter-claim in which the declaration was sought that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit house on the basis of the sale deed executed in her favour and the suit property be declared as nazul property. The defendants in his counter claim stated that cause of action for filing of the counter claim accrued on 11-8-2009. The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12-3-2010 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli, 1987 AIR(SC) 1395 and Sugesan and Co. Pvt. Ltd., Madras Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Hyderabad, 2004 AIR(AP) 428, and with a view to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, took on record the counter-claim filed by respondent-defendant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the suit for eviction has to be decided on the basis of contract of tenancy and the question of title cannot be gone into the suit for eviction. It was further submitted that since the respondent had already filed the written statement therefore, it was not open for him to file the counter claim. In support of aforesaid proposition, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramcharan Shukhlal Vs. Daulat Munniram, 1996 MPLJ 192.