MADANLAL Vs. GIRISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the defendants -petitioners, against whom a suit for ejectment was filed under section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'). The said suit was filed as back as on 21.1.1978 claiming arrears of rent from 1.11.1977. Thus, on the date of filing of the suit the amount due towards rent comes to Rs. 297.50 p. The defendant was served with the notice of the suit on 20.7.1978. The defendant deposited Rs. 850/ - on 29.7.1978, i.e., well within the period of one month as required by section 13 of the Act.

(2.) THE dispute about the quantum of rent was raised and trial Court vide order dated 6.3.1981 has fixed the rent as Rs. 212.50 p. Thus, the amount was reduced by Rs. 85/ -. This deduction was made on the basis of admission of the plaintiff that the amount of Rs. 85/ - was deposited with him. Thus, the rent due upto August, 1978 comes to Rs. 680/ -, against which Rs. 850/ - as referred above were deposited. Again on 14.8.1978 the petitioner deposited Rs. 85/ - towards the monthly payment of September 1978 and thereafter he continued to deposit the rent in advance upto February, 1983. After February, 1983 the defendant did not deposit the rent for a period of six months and deposited Rs. 680/ - on 4.8.1983 along with an application for condonation alleging that he could not deposit the rent for a period of six months due to illness of his son. This application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 5.6.1984. However, in the application for condonation there was some typing mistake. The petitioner instead of mentioning the period from February, 1983 to August, 1983 mentioned the date as from 1.8.1983 to 31.1.1984. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he continued to deposit the rent from time to time. The respondent on 22.1.2001 filed an application under section 13(6) of the Act stating that the petitioner is not regularly depositing the rent and, therefore, the defence of the petitioner should be struck off. The petitioner filed reply to the said application along with detailed statement showing the deposits right from July, 1978. The petitioner has also filed a separate application for condonation of delay along with his affidavit on 25.9.2001. The Court also called for the report from Nazir, who submitted his report showing deposits from 1.5.1981. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 11.10.2001 held that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, his defence is struck down. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.

(3.) IN Reply to the said argument, counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and the report of Nazir shows that the petitioner has not timely deposited the amount as required by section 13 of the Act. Counsel for the respondents further urged that the benefit of condonation can be given to the petitioner only once and that being given to him by order dated 5.6.1984 he is not entitled for condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondents further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Patel Balmik Himmatlal and others v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai (1998) 7 SCC 383), and urged that the order condoning the delay is a discretionary order and should not be interfered by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.