S S HARISHCHANDRA JAIN Vs. CAPTAIN INDERSINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Division Bench hearing this appeal felt that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ratan-chand Firm v. Rajendra Kumar, 1969 MPLJ 672 : (AIR 1970 madh Pra 1 (FB)) required further consideration. The question formulated for opinion is as follows:-

(2.) THE plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, notice charges and ejectment from the suit premises against the respondent-defendant. This suit admittedly was on the ground provided in section 12 (1) fa) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). On an application of the defendant the trial Judge fixed the provisional rent as provided by Section 13 (2) of the Act. Later, the defendant submitted an application seeking relief under Section 13 (5) of the act. The trial Court found that the required deposits of rent having been made by the defendant-tenant, the condition necessary for Section 13 (5) of the Act are satisfied. He, therefore, held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim ejectment in this suit on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment.

(3.) IT would be appropriate to refer that the trial Court by its order, dated 6-11970 had fixed case for issues and filing documents on 29-1-1970. But then it appears that the issues were never framed. The plaintiff had claimed Rs. 4,480/- as arrears of rent from 1-3-1967 to 30-4-1968 at the rate of Rs. 320/p. m. Since the trial Court found that there was a dispute about it within the meaning of Section 13 (2) of the Act, it had fixed the provisional rent. No doubt, the provisional rent fixed by the Court was the same i. e. Rs. 320/-p. m. as was claimed by the plaintiff but that does not make any difference so far as the requirement of deciding the question is concerned. The only effect of payment or deposit of rent by the tenant in accordance with Section 13 (1), is that no order or decree for eviction shall be passed against him as is contemplated by Sections 12 (3) and 13 (5) of the Act. There may be cases where the provisional rent fixed by the Court may be in between the figures claimed as rent by the landlord and the tenant. In such a suit there being a dispute as to the amount of rent and the Court having fixed the provisional rent, the issue in that behalf has to be decided. Either of the two i. e. the landlord or the tenant or both of them may be aggrieved by the finding on that issue or none may be aggrieved.