D R JHA Vs. SHRI RAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Rent controlling Authority, Jabalpur, dated 4-4-1984.

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this revision petition are that the non-applicants filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for a decree for eviction under section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 but in this application before the Rent Controlling Authority it appears that the non-applicant-plaintiff also made a statement that the tenant has not deposited rent from August 1983 to October 1983 and this application was filed in the month of November 1983. In an application submitted by the petitioner for leave to defend before the Rent Controlling Authority it was stated that from 1st August 1983 to 30th September 1983 Rs. 250/- were paid by the petitioner tenant to the landlord but no receipts were given in spite of the repeated requests and it was further stated that from 1-10-1983 the petitioner defendant is ready and willing to pay. The learned Rent Controlling Authority granted leave to defend to the present petitioner and when the proceedings were pending before the Rent controlling Authority an application was made by the non-applicant landlord under section 13 (6) of the Accommodation Control Act for striking out the defence of the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner defendant replied to this prayer by saying that as he has raised a dispute about payment of two months' rent, i. e. August and September 1983, and about which no order was passed as contemplated under section 13 (2) and, therefore, an order for striking out the defence could not be passed against the petitioner. By the impugned order the Rent Controlling Authority observed that the permission to defend could not be granted to the petitioner. In substance, what he meant was that the permission granted is revoked and he directed that ex parte evidence be recorded and he has further directed that on ejectment plaint whatever court-fee is payable be deposited probably on the basis of arrears and it is against this order that the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that under section 23-A the rent Controlling Authority has been conferred jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding only in respect of eviction on the ground of genuine requirement and under section 23-A the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction whatsoever to decree arrears of rent or to grant a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Under these circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of arrears is not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, the direction for withdrawing permission to defend on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court below was not right in passing the impugned order. Alternatively, it was contended that if the question of arrears could be considered by the Rent Controlling Authority, then as a dispute has been raised at the very first stage permission to defend was sought and still as no provisional order was passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 13 (2)an order under section 13 (6) could not be passed. Learned counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand, contended that even if the question of arrears could not be gone into, it was incumbent on the petitioner to deposit the rent from the date of the application till today before the Rent Controlling Authority as section 13 is applicable not only to suits before the Civil Court but also to proceedings before the Rent controlling Authority and it is, therefore, contended that in absence of the amount being deposited by the petitioner, the Court below was right in passing the impugned order which, in substance, amounts to striking out the defence.