CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. KISHANDAS JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTIES have made a very long journey to come to this Court which commenced on 6-6-1971. In between there was another bout of litigation which had brought them to this Court. Then, on 20-9-1976, an order was passed in Civil revision No. 443 of 1976 wherein the question determinable by this Court concerned fixation and payment of provisional rent in terms of Section 13 (2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for short the 'act'.

(2.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff/landlord, who sued in terms of Section 12 (l) (a)of the Act for eviction of the tenant (defendant-respondent) from the suit house on the ground of default in payment of rent due payable by the tenant for the premises occupied by him. Because there was a dispute between the parties as to the quantum of the rent payable by the tenant, it had to be determined under Section 13 (2) of the act and proceedings in the course of the suit commenced for that purpose terminating eventually, as earlier alluded, in this Court's order passed on 20-9-1976. It is the finding of the lower appellate Court in the impugned judgment that because of the proceedings undertaken under Section 13 (2) of the Act during the pendency of the suit, compliance with the provisions of Section 3 (-l) could not be ensured though the defendant-respondent started making regularly deposits of rent on and after 16-12-1976, namely, within three months, as directed by this Court, by the order aforesaid' rendered on 20-9-1976. However, what is contended by Shri N. K. Jain, counsel, appearing for the landlord/appellant, by filing LA. No. I/86 in the course of hearing of this appeal, is that the Court below misconstrued the provision of Section 13 (1) of the act and confirmed erroneously the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing his suit, without ascertaining the fact as to whether during the pendency of the appeal before it the tenant had continued to make deposit of rent regularly in terms of section 13 (1) of the Act. It may be noted in this connection that after provisional rent under Section 13 (2) was fixed at Rs. 45/- per month by this Court, finally the trial Court determined defendant's liability to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 50/ -.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the short question on which the decision of this appeal hangs is construction mainly, in my opinion, of sub-section (5) of Section 13, which I extract along with sub-section (i) :-