SUDARSHAN Vs. BULLOX VENTURES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Sudarshan Sanyal being aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned 21st Civil Judge, Class -I, Indore in Civil Suit No. 141A/14 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 13(6) of Accommodation Control Act for striking of the defence of respondents No. 1 & 2.

(2.) IN brief and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents No. 1 & 2/defendants in the trial Court M/s. Bullox Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Bharat Phosphates & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. were admittedly the tenants in the suit accommodation (commercial) belonging to Smt. Sudarshan. The petitioner owner filed a suit for eviction against the defendants on the grounds of arrears of rent i.e. Section 12(1)(a), 12(1)(c) & 12(1)(f)of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for recovery of arrears; for bonafide need and for vacant possession of the tenanted property. That even after passage of several months from the date of filing of the suit, the respondent tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent and hence an application under Section 13(6) of Accommodation Control Act to strike off the defence of the respondent was filed. The trial Court, however, rejected the application on the grounds that respondent No. 3 Punjab National Bank was in possession of the tenanted property; since, defendants No. 1 & 2 had taken a loan from the Bank which remained unpaid and the respondent Bank had proceeded against defendants No. 1 & 2 and under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and had taken symbolic possession of the tenanted premises by pasting a paper seal on the lock already put by the borrower defendant No. 1.

(3.) COUNSEL has vehemently urged that the petitioner owner; was not concerned with the loan taken by the defendants nor was her property in any way involved in the transaction. Even if the contentions put forth by the Counsel for the respondent Bank are considered, Counsel submitted that the respondent Bank was fully entitled to the lien on the goods that were inside the tenanted premises and not on the premises itself and it is clear that the learned judge of the trial Court had erred and Counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Counsel also urged that the respondents had in collusion deprived the present petitioner from her legal right to have the defence struck off since the defendants/tenants were neither paying the rent nor allowing the eviction proceedings to continue in accordance with the provisions of law.