MAHAVIR KUMAR Vs. PHOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order dated 17-10-1984, the Rent Controlling authority, Guna, struck out the defence of the petitioner defendant under section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act. According to the respondents-landlords by whom the case before the Rent Controlling Authority was instituted against the petitioner, the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. That was disputed by the petitioner-tenant according to whom, the rent was Rs. 100/- per month. The Rent Controlling Authority was of the view that the rate of Rs. 100/- per month having been admitted by the petitioner-tenant, he should have deposited rent at least at that rate and he having failed to do so in violation of section 13 (1) his defence was liable to be struck out under section 13 (6 ).

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, there having been a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the petitioner tenant, it was incumbent upon the Rent Controlling Authority to fix a reasonable provisional rent under section 13 (2) and, unless that was done by him, the petitioner-tenant was not bound to deposit rent in compliance with section 13 (1 ). He has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chhogalal vs. Bhagwan Shri Satyanarain (1975 J. L. J. 779 ).

(3.) BE that as it may, the primary question which needs to be decided is whether the revision petition is at all maintainable. Sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Act provides as follows :