SUDARSHANPRASAD PANDEY Vs. RAJARAM SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant fro n an accommodation to which the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is applicable.

(2.) THE suit was filed on two grounds (1) that the tenant was in arrears of rent and had not paid the same as required by section 12 (1) (a) of the Act, and (2) that the accommodation was required bona fide by the landlord for his own personal use within the meaning of section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. The trial Court disallowed the ground of bona fide requirement as the requisite, period after purchase of two months had not expired. It, however, decreed the suit on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenant thereafter filed an appeal which was allowed and decree of the trial Court was reversed as the conditions necessary under section 12 (1) (a) of the Act were not complied with. A notice of demand (Ex. P.-3) had been served on the defendant-tenant on 9th march 1964 to make payment within two months. That period of two months expired on 8th May 1964. The suit in this case was filed on 6th May 1964 before the period of two months had expired. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the suit as no cause of action had arisen on the date when the suit was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that in any case during the pendency of the suit the tenant had failed to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Act by making the necessary deposits and his defence ought to have been barred. The learned counsel requests that the defence of the defendent-tenant may be barred now so that he is unable to take a defence under section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 11 starts with the following words :