SOBHAGYAMAL Vs. GOPAL DAS NIKHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts material for the decision of this case are that Gopal Das (respondent herein) was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises on the monthly rent of Rs.350/ - w.e.f. 14.12.1973. As the respondent was not paying the rent of the suit premises regularly and was defaulter, a notice demanding arrears of rent was issued by the landlord on 28.6.1975. Despite the service of notice, the respondent did not pay the rent within two months from the service of notice and, therefore, the landlord filed a civil suit being Suit No.75 -A/1979 for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground of section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") (i.e. default in payment of rent) and on the ground of section 12(1)(b) (i.e. sub -letting) and later on, by amendment, on the ground of section 12(1)(f) (i.e. bona fide necessity of the accommodation for non -residential purposes). On institution of the suit, the respondent deposited the rent within one month of the service of writ of summon of the Court on him. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on the ground of bona fide requirement under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. With regard to the default, the trial Court found as under:

(2.) IN the second proceeding, by judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the rent from 13.12.1984 was due from the respondent and thus he had committed default in payment of rent and was liable to be ejected on the ground of arrears of rent. The respondent preferred an appeal in the High Court being FA No.86/2000. On 21.12.2000, the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. The High Court held that since the appellants herein did not take any steps to get the defence of the respondent struck out while the case was pending before the Supreme Court the appellants were precluded from getting a decree for default of the period when the case was pending before the Supreme Court. The appellants herein preferred a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench. LPA was dismissed as not maintainable and thus the appellants are before us.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the respondent/tenant got benefit of section 12(3) of the Act in the previous proceedings and thus no decree for ejectment was passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The second proceeding of filing a suit for ejectment under section 12(1)(a) of the Act was initiated by the appellants herein/landlord after service of notice demanding arrears of rent due during the pendency of the previous proceedings. It was contended by the respondent that non -deposit of rent in Court in the previous proceedings or not tendering rent to the landlord could not be considered as arrears of rent, and that at best his defence against eviction could have been struck out under section 13(6) of the Act. Non -payment of rent during the pendency of the previous proceedings would not be treated as arrears of rent to give a cause of action to the landlord to file a suit on the ground of arrears of rent. The High Court upheld this contention and found that no ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Act was available to the appellants herein/landlord for non -payment of rent by the respondent/tenant during the pendency of the previous proceedings before the Court.