BRAJESH SHUKLA Vs. NARESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.11.2013, by which the trial court has allowed the application preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 13(6) of the M.P.Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as well as the application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent No.1 has filed the suit for eviction against the petitioners on the ground enumerated under Section 12 (1)(a)(e) and (f) of the Act. The petitioners in their written statement have asserted that relationship of the landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties and the petitioners are the owner of the property in question. The trial court has allowed the application under Section 13(6) of the Act on the ground that the petitioners have failed to comply with the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act. The trial Court has also allowed the application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC on the ground that the burden to prove the fact that the petitioners are the owner of the property in question is on the petitioners.

(2.) The Supreme Court in the case of Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 SC 162, has held that even when the defence of a tenant to the proceeding for eviction is struck down, still the defendant is entitled to contest the suit under the general law. In the instant case, admittedly, it is the case of the petitioners that relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra), the petitioners are entitled to contest the suit and lead the evidence under the general law, however, the petitioners would not be allowed to contest the suit in the capacity as tenant. Therefore, the order insofar as it allows the application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure neither suffers from the error apparent on the face of record warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. See, Jai Singh and others vs. M.C.D. and others (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329]. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to contest the suit and lead the evidence under the general law. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by FAX. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.