ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SHIVCHARAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/defendant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2013 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in C.O.S. No.19-A/10 whereby allowing the application of the respondent/ plaintiff filed under Section 13(6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (In short "the Act") directing the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of rent of the disputed premises within some prescribed period, failing which his defence shall stand struck down.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the impugned order along the papers placed on record argued that in response of the plaint the petitioner in his written statement by denying the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties specifically stated that he is in possession of the premises as co-parcenor of the joint Hindu Family Property. He also said that till the property of joint Hindu Family is divided or partitioned between the amongst co-parcenors every co-parcenor of the family is deemed to be the owner of every part of the property. In such premises it was also argued that in the lack of any relationship between the parties as tenant and landlord neither the respondents are entitled to get the sum of rent nor petitioner is bound to pay the same and in such premises the trial Court could not have passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the entire arrears of rent as stated by the respondent in the plaint, within prescribed period, failing which defence of the petitioner shall stand struck down in the matter. With these submission he also prayed that under the existing legal position the impugned order is not sustainable and prayed to set aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing the petition.

(3.) Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments I have carefully gone through the averments of the petition along with the papers placed on record. It is undisputed fact on record that the respondents have filed the suit stating that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondents and he has not paid the rent of the accommodation as per the terms and condition of the tenancy but in response of the plaint by filing the written statement the petitioner has categorically stated that he never remained their tenant and he being co-parcenor of the joint Hindu Family Property is in possession of the disputed property. Accordingly, the relationship of tenant and landlord has been denied by him.