SHYAM BHAGWAN DUBEY Vs. SHAIKH NIZAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only substantial question which has been framed in this suit at the time of admission of its appeal is "whether the amount deposited by the tenant in compliance to the provisions of S. 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, can be allowed to be refunded to the tenant even though the tenant was in arrears of rent and had deposited the same to seek protection against eviction."

(2.) The only relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are these : There is a small shop which was let out by the appellant/landlord to the respondent/ tenants/defendants round about the year 1972 or 1973. The respondents/tenants defaulted in payment of rent. Hence, the present suit was filed by the appellant/landlord for eviction of the respondents/tenants from the suit premises. The issues framed in the suit were:

(3.) The court of appeal below, however, while upholding the decree directed the appellant to refund any amount deposited in terms of S. 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act No. XLI of 1961) for the period before institution of the suit. It is against this direction which has been incorporated as a part of the decree of the lower appellate Court that the appellant has come before this Court. I think the point is simple and the appeal has to be allowed. The relevant portion of S. 13(1) of the Act of 1961 reads as follows: