SHARADCHAND Vs. VISHNUPANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this second appeal was placed before a learned single Judge for admission, he passed the following order:-" the appeal is admitted for hearing on the following questions:-

(2.) IS the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indersingh bedi, 1977 MP LJ 417 : (AIR 1977 Madh Pra 199) no longer good law in view of the Supreme Court decision in Radha Kishan Sao v. Gopal modi, AIR 1977 SC 1217. Issue notice to the other side for a date to be fixed in the office. B. P. F. within a week. The aforesaid question No. 2, arising for decision in the appeal, has naturally to be decided by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the correctness of the Full Bench decision in S. S. Harishchandra Jain v. Indarsingh Bedi, (AIR 1977 Madh B 199) has been challenged. The papers be, therefore, laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for decision of the said question No. 2 after the respondents are duly served. " as Harishachandra's case (supra) was decided by Full Bench of five judges, this Bench was constituted to reconsider the correctness of that decision. In Harishchandra's case it was held that Section 13 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) does not apply and no part of that section applies, to an appeal, whether the appeal be by the tenant or by the landlord. It was further held that the Full Bench decision reported in Ratandhand Firm v. Rajendra kumar, 1969 MP LJ 672: (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 1) did not lay down correct law. Section 13 of the Act enacts as follows:-

(3.) NOW, the two apparently corresponding provisions may be compared:--BIHAR ACT M. P. ACT (1) There is no statutory liability of the tenant to deposit rent unless a specific order is made by the court.