INDERLAL BALKIRAM Vs. MAHNGI BAI IMRATLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to revise an order of the First Civil Judge, Second Class, jabalpur, postponing consideration of the plaintiff-applicant's prayer under Section 13 (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. 1951, for striking out the non-applicants' defence against eviction till after the determination of the question whether the non-applicants are tenants of the petitioner

(2.) THE revision petition has been placed before us for hearing and disposal as there arc conflicting Single Bench decisions of this Court on the question whether before invoking Section 13 of the Act against the defendant in a suit for eviction there must be first a finding that the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff. A reference to these decisions will be made later On the language of Section 13 of the Act, and regard being had to the object and purpose of the provision, we have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 13 come into play the moment a person, claiming himself to be the landlord of any accommodation, flies a suit for eviction, on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, against a person who, according to the plaintiff suing, is the person in occupation of the accommodation as his tenant. Section 13 (1) is as follows:

(3.) THE opening words of Section 13 (1), namely, "on a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall. . . . deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord" are very significant and furnish the answer to the question raised for determination in this revision petition the words "on a suit or proceeding 'being instituted'" (underlined herein ' ' by us)clearly do not involve the requirement of any finding being given either on the question whether the plaintiff suing is the landlord or on the question whether the defendant sued is the tenant. This follows from the normal meaning of the important words "being instituted" Once a suit for ejectment, on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12, is instituted, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 18 operate against the defendant, and the Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with any claim or question arising under any of the provisions of Section 13, no matter whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or denied by the defendant. Section 13 (1) does not say, or intend to say, that the plea of the defendant will determine whether he is or is not liable to make any deposit under that provision, it proceeds on the basis that a suit by a person claiming to be a landlord has been filed against the person alleged to be his tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 12. It is plain from Section 12 that in a suit for eviction, founded on any of the grounds mentioned therein, the plaintiff must allege that he is the landlord and that the defendant is his tenant. Therefore, the word "tenant" used in Section 13 (1) of the Act is merely connolative of the description which the plaintiff has given of the defendant and means nothing more than "defendant". It does not imply a defendant who has been found to be a tenant by the Court.