GOPAL SINGH RAWAT Vs. RAMAVTAR MOURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dtd. 25/9/2023 passed by Second Civil Judge, Junior Division Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.36A/2023, whereby application filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff under Sec. 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, for closing the right of defense of the defendants has been rejected.

(2.) . The said order is assailed on the ground that as per provision contained in Sec. 13(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act when there is a dispute with regard to rent then the Court has to resort to the provisions contained thereunder and later sub Sec. and pass a necessary order in that regard, but instead thereof learned trial Court in the impugned order had held that since there is no dispute with regard to the landlord tenant relationship between the parties nor there is any dispute as to whom the rent is payable and looking to the only dispute which is with regard to payment of rent to the landlord i.e. the present petitioner/plaintiff, benefit of Sec. 13 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act cannot be granted.

(3.) . Learned Senior counsel Shri N.K. Gupta alongwith Ms. Rashi Kushwah, counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that as per the provisions of Sec. 13(2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act if any suit or proceedings referred to in Sub-Sec. (1), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Court shall on the plea made either by the landlord or tenant in that behalf is obliged to fix a reasonable provisional rent, in relation to the accommodation, to be deposited or paid in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Sec. (1). It was further contended that the reference of the dispute as to the amount of rent payable would mean rate of rent, which is in dispute between the parties and the same has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jamnalal and Others Vs. Radheshyam reported in (2000)4 SCC 380. It was further argued that the dispute between the parties was with regard to rate of rent and quantum of arrears of rent and the clause "the Court shall" fix a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodated clearly indicates that "any dispute as to the amount of rent" is confined to a dispute which depends on the rate of rent of the accommodation either because no rate of rent is fixed between the parties or because each of them pleads a different sum, therefore, the learned trial Court was required to decide the application and fixed a provisional rent when admittedly there was a dispute with regard to rate of rent, as the petitioner/plaintiff was claiming arrears of rent @ 10,000/- per month, whereas defendant was admitting the rent only at the rate of Rs.5000.00 per month payable at his hand. Thus it was contended that the impugned order is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside. Further, it was prayed that the matter is required to be remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication upon the aforesaid application.