URMILA DEVI Vs. BHANU PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendant's petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court thereby the Court below has refused to condone the default of the petitioner -defendants in depositing the due rent and the rent month to month despite the directions of the Court. Consequent to which, their defence was struck out.

(2.) IN the suit filed by the non -petitioner -plaintiff on the grounds of 12 (1) (a) (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the petitioners had raised the dispute under section 13 of the Act which came to be decided by the trial Court and the tenants -petitioners were directed to deposit the claimed rent of three years as the remaining rent had become time -barred and was not claimed by the plaintiff, within two months from 6.7.92. When the period was to expire, an application was filed by the petitioners -defendant that they were not financially well and could not deposit the due rent as also the monthly rent within the period allowed by the Court and further extension was sought. The petitioners were further allowed a period of 10 days, but they failed to deposit the amount within the period of two months and even during the extended period. However, the rent only for a period of 4 months was deposited by them later. The learned trial Court had directed on 4.8.93 that if the total due rent was not deposited within a period of ten days, their right of defence shall be struck out. The defendants did not deposit the rent and made a further application on 11.10.93 under section 151 C.P.C. contending that the financial position not being sound they could not deposit the rent and further extention be allowed. This application was decided by the trial Court after more than a month on 18.11.93. While dismissing the application, seven days further time was allowed to the defendants but still the rent was not deposited.

(3.) SHRI Bhardwaj has placed implicit reliance on the authority of Apex Court in Shyam Charan Sharma v. Dharmdas (1980 JLJ 280) to contend that it is within the discretion of the Court to condon the delay. It was found by the Apex Court that if the arrears of rent were deposited by the tenant within time allowed by the Court, the tenant would be protected under section 12 (3) of the Act and thereafter a further default was committed in depositing the monthly rent that may also be condoned by the Court. But if a tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent as also the monthly rent, despite the time being allowed by the Court on more than one occasion, he shall be deemed to be a wilful defaulter and the delay would be mala fide, which would not deserve condonation. The rent laws have been enacted for the protection of the tenants but at the same time cannot be permitted to be utilised for harassing the landlords. The above authority cited, therefore, does not help the petitioners, but rather goes against them.