GULAB CHAND Vs. THAWARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision by the defendant has been directed against the order dated 26th June, 1984 passed by II Civil Judge, Class II, During in Civil Suit No. 25-A of 1983 rejecting he defendant's application praying for time to deposit the arrears of rent and allowing the plaintiff-men-applicant's application under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) PLAINTIFF non-applicant has instituted a suit against the defendant-applicant for ejectment and arrears of rent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. By an order dated 18.2.1983, the trial Court fixed the rent at Rs. 100/- per month and directed to deposit all the arrears of rent within one month. The applicant preferred a revision against that order being Civil Revision No. 1252 of 1983 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31st October, 1983 by fixing the provisional rent at Rs. 40/- per month and it was directed that the applicant will deposit all the arrears of rent in the trial Court within one month from the date of that order. It was further directed that the arrears will also cover that period for which he alleges that he has been depositing rent in the State Bank, and that he will also continue to deposit the rent month by month by 15th of each month in the trial Court.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had made deposit in the State Bank in accordance with the directions of the Rent Controlling authority on an application filed by the applicant under Section 25 of the Act and, therefore, it should valid discharge. As against this, the contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that it was obligatory on the part of the applicant to deposit it all the arrears of rent in the Civil Court notwithstanding the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act. He also contended that by virtue of the order of this Court passed in earlier revision (G.R. No. 1252/83), deposits should have been made in accordance with the directions of the High Court and as it has not been done so there is no compliance. In support of this contention, he also relied on a decision of this Court in Bhanupratap Agrawal v. Rupchand, 1981 J.L.J. 218.