LACHOO RAM Vs. BIPIN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant/tenant is against the judgement and decree of eviction, passed under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'), which was admitted by this Court for hearing on 4-4-1983 on the following substantial question of law :-

(2.) It is not disputed that the respondent/landlord instituted an earlier Suit No. 113-A/73 for eviction under S. 12(1)(a) of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha, wherein the appellant/tenant having deposited the arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of writ of summons, the order of eviction was not made on the ground specified in clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, because of the benefit granted under Section 12(3) of the Act. The tenant again committed default in payment of rent of the accommodation for more than three consecutive months, hence, the landlord served a notice of demand dated 23-1-1976 (Ext. P/2) for the payment of arrears of rent legally recoverable, which was received by the tenant on 29-1-1976, to which the tenant replied vide letter dated 11-2-1976 (Ext. D/2). The landlord without waiting for the expiry of the period of two months of the date on which notice of demand was served, instituted a suit on 14-2-1976 for eviction under S. 12(1)(a) of the Act, and for recovery of arrears of rent. The tenant deposited the arrears of rent, as claimed, within one month from the writ of summons, but, the trial Court decreed the suit as the tenant was not entitled to the protection and benefit in view of proviso to Sub-Section (3) of S. 12. Against the said decree, the tenant preferred an appeal, which having been dismissed, he has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) Shri D. K. Katare, learned counsel for the appellant, in the backdrop of the admitted facts, contended that the decree for eviction passed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, is without jurisdiction as the landlord filed the suit before accrual of cause of action, that is before expiry of two months' period of the date on which notice of demand was served, hence, for eviction ground of clause (a) of Section 12(1) of the Act was not available; to support the contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Sunder Prasad Pandey v. Rajaram Shukla, 1972 JLJ 759 : SA No. 18 of 1967 (J), decided on 30-4-1971; Allarakhi v. Goverdhandas, (1990) I MPWN 172, SA No. 120 of 1977 (G), decided on 24-1-1990, Shantilal v. Gauswami, 1984 MPWN 494 : SA No. 568 of 1974 (I), decided on 9-8-1984; and Gulabibai v. Aziz Mohd., 1984 MPWN 578; SA No. 81 of 1976 (I), decided on 14-9-1984.