AMIT KUMAR JAIN @ AMITABH JAIN Vs. HARIOM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the orders passed by trial Court dated 24-3-2014 rejecting the application of petitioner/defendant filed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) and order dated 2-4-2014; whereby, petitioner's application under Order XIV, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition that respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for arrears of rent and bona fide need of the suit accommodation for non-residential purposes against the petitioner/defendants. The suit is pending consideration. Petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d), Civil Procedure Code on the premise that the suit is premature inasmuch as the notice for demand of rent was given on 20-6-2013; whereas, the suit has been filed on 14-8-2013 which is less than two months from the date of notice, therefore, the suit could not have been allowed to proceed and the same is barred by Order VII, Rule 11(d), Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Trial Court had dealt with this objection in impugned order dated 24-3-2014 and held that suit is filed under section 12(1)(a) as well as (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, therefore, suit as a whole cannot be said to be barred under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. That apart, trial Court on such objection being raised in written statement has already framed an issue as to whether suit is premature or not ? Trial Court while addressing on the application moved under Order XIV, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code has held that there is no need for deciding the aforesaid issue as preliminary issue as regard prematurity of the suit as issue framed in this regard require evidence to be led by both the parties and accordingly ordered for decision of all the issues altogether. With the aforesaid reasonings, trial Court dismissed these application.

(3.) Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions as contained under section 12(1)(a) of Accommodation Control Act are to be interpreted strictly and therefore, trial Court could not have been proceeded with the suit and plaint ought to have been returned.