SANJAY KUMAR Vs. PREM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The petitioner/defendant/tenant has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2013 passed by 4 th Civil Judge Class-I, Chhindwara in Civil Suit No.116-A/2012 whereby his application filed under Section 13 (3) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") with a prayer to decide the entitlement of respondent No.2 to 4 to receive the rent of disputed accommodation has been dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the impugned order along with the papers placed on record argued that as per provision of Section 13 (3) of the Act, the trial Court was duty bound to hold the inquiry on the aforesaid objection raised in the application by the petitioner and decide the question regarding entitlement of respondent No.2 to 4 to receive the rent of disputed accommodation. He fairly conceded that the relationship as landlord and tenant between respondent No.1 and petitioner is not under dispute and there is no dispute regarding terms of the tenancy between them. The petitioner is still depositing regular rent of the accommodation for respondent No.1 and not for others but contrary to the mandatory provision of Section 13 (3) of the Act without holding the requisite inquiry, only on the basis of the pleadings of the plaint, the trial Court has decided his application and held that the respondent No.1 was receiving the rent of disputed accommodation for himself and also on behalf of co-respondents No.2 to 4. The same not in-consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing his application with a direction to the trial Court to hold the inquiry as prayed by the petitioner by admitting and allowing this petition.