MOHAMMAD HAROON Vs. MOHAMMAD RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid petitions are decided by this common order because the common questions are involved in both the petitions. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are directed against the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by the court below, whereby the court below has struck off the defence of the present petitioner by invoking section 13(1)(6) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

(2.) Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent (Annexure P/2) and alleged that he is the landlord and was getting Rs.200/- as rent from the petitioner. In turn, the petitioner has filed his written statement and in paragraph 4 of the said written statement specifically denied that the respondent is the landlord and, therefore, stated that the question of giving rent does not arise. The contents of para 4 of the plaint were also specifically denied. On the strength of this denial, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking assistance of section 13(2) and (3) of the Act submit that in view of this denial, the court below was first required to give following finding as under:-

(3.) The bone of contention of Shri Shrivastava is that without dealing with this facet the court below has directly struck off the defence of the petitioner which is bad in law. He relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court, (Chhogalal v. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarain (Idol), 1975 JabLJ 779) (Paragraph 9) and another judgment in the same volume at page 682 (Bachchoobhai v. Premanand). He also relied on (Sankata Devi Verma vs. Jagdish Singh Chandel, 1999 1 MPLJ 497) in support of his aforesaid contention.