LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-135

NARENDRA SURI Vs. SUDERSHAN KUMAR SETHI

Decided On August 08, 2019
Narendra Suri Appellant
V/S
Sudershan Kumar Sethi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this instant petition, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Court below whereby, the defence of the defendant/petitioner has been struck out under the provision of Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "Act of 1961").

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Court below is contrary to the basic object of Section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 and the same has been exercised by the Court below as it is mandatory provision and if any violation of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961 is done by the tenant, then automatically the defence of the tenant would be struck down. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the provision of Section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 is discretionary and while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction, the Court has to see that the reason for non-compliance of Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961 is justified or not.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that from the order itself it is clear that the Court has not considered the reason for not making deposit as per Section 13(1) of the Act of 1961 and thus, has allowed application of the plaintiff/respondent and struck down the defence of the defendant/petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon the judgements reported in AIR 1980 SC 587: parties being Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas and 1995 (1) SCC 356: parties being Kamla Devi (Smt.) v. Vasdev. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, despite determination of provisional rent by the trial Court and thereafter said order was assailed by the present petitioner, before this Court in which on 04.09.2017, the Court has fixed the provisional rent @ Rs.10,750/- per month after reducing the same from Rs.11,550/- per month, the defendant has not deposited the same and made a request before the Court below that he may be permitted to deposit the same in installments.