SABIHA MASOOD Vs. TAHABBUR ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied by the order directing the defendant to deposit rent within a period of one month, failing which his defence would be struck out, the defendant has filed this revision petition.

(2.) MS. Iyer, learned counsel for the applicant states that as she has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and has also filed a suit for declaration of title, the trial Court was not justified in directing the defendant to deposit the rent.

(3.) IN the suit for eviction based on a ground Under Section 12 (1), the defendant has two types of defences (1) which are known as common law defence and (2) which are available to the tenant under the Accommodation Control Act itself. The Common Law defence are like the liability to pay the rent, the arrears of rent, the relationship of landlord and tenant and the ownership of the property. But under the Accommodation Control Act, the defences which are available to the tenant are to disprove the case of the landlord and show to the Court by leading cogent evidence that availability of a ground Under Section 12 (1) is not made out. When a tenant challenges the ownership or the relationship of landlord and tenant, this may probably be a dispute Under Section 13 (3) of the Act. A Court before striking out the defence is required to decide the said dispute. If despite direction the tenant does not deposit the rent then his defence available to him under the Accommodation Control Act can certainly be struck out but this striking out the defence available to a tenant under the Accommodation Control Act would not have the effect of striking out the defences of the tenant which are available to him under the Common/general Law. If a tenant wants to take advantage of the defences which are available to him under the Accommodation Control Act, then he should deposit the rent but if he does not deposit, then such defence would not be available to him. If such a tenant proves his common law defence by leading cogent evidence that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant or the plaintiff is not the owner or even by cross-examining the plaintiff's defences that a ground is not available to the landlord to evict the defendant, then this right is not hampered by striking out the defence. The effect is only that the defendant would not be permitted to lead evidence to disprove the availability of the ground Under Section 12 (1) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act.