SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SOORAJ PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. On behalf of the petitioner-defendant, this petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 31-1-2012, passed by the I Civil Judge, Class I, Katni in COS No. 71-A/11 whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (in short "the Act"), the defence of the petitioner available under the provisions of the Act has been struck down and simultaneously, the application of the petitioner filed to condone the delay and in extending the period with opportunity to deposit the entire arrears of rent and recurring rent of the disputed premises has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner's Counsel after taking me through the petition as well as papers placed on record alongwith the impugned order, by referring the provisions of Section 13 of the Act argued that after receiving the summon of the impugned suit, the petitioner had given his appearance before the Trial Court and took adjournment on dated 28-3-2011 and thereafter, he had filed WS on 20-5-2011 and subsequently, some talk of compromise was going on between the parties and that is why the sum of the arrears of rent was not deposited by the petitioner with the Trial Court in accordance with the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act and that is why besides the aforesaid application filed on behalf of the respondent for striking down the defence, the petitioner has also filed an application for extending time and opportunity to him to deposit the arrears of rent. Subsequently, he has deposited the entire arrears of rent on 13-2-2012 through receipt No. 47 of book No. 16621. At this stage, on asking the petitioner's Counsel whether after depositing such sum on the aforesaid date 13-2-2012 has he filed any application before the Trial Court for condoning the delay in depositing such arrears of rent, on which he submits that no such application has been filed. Also on asking the Counsel whether he is depositing the regular monthly recurring rent with the Trial Court, on which he submits that probably petitioner is depositing the same, but he does not have any positive information in this regard. Again on asking the petitioner's Counsel whether any dispute regarding rate of monthly rent or quantum of alleged arrears on any count has been raised in the WS, on which he submits that no such objection was taken either in the WS or through reply of aforesaid application or by any independent application.

(3.) In the aforesaid premises, the petitioner's Counsel prayed that considering the aforesaid cause, as talk of compromise was going on between the parties, so the arrears of rent was not deposited, to be sufficient cause or in any case by invoking the jurisdiction of mercy the entire delay caused in depositing the arrears of rent be condoned and pursuant to it by setting aside the impugned order, the aforesaid application of the respondent be dismissed.