SA 264/1995
-1 -
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Second Appeal No. 264/1995
Shri Rathore Sakalpanch Trust Khandwa: APPELLANT
PLAINTIFF
Versus
Ved Prakash : RESPONDENT
DEFENDANT
P R E S E N T:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gupta
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellant : Shri V.P. Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent : None for the respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
13-05-2010
This is an appeal at the instance of the plaintiff
challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1994
passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of
District Judge, Khandwa in Civil Appeal No.6-A/1994
arising out of Civil Suit No.21A/89 decided on 2.11.1993 by
the Court of III Civil Judge, Class-II, Khandwa.
2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff-
appellant had instituted a civil suit against the respondent-
defendant for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent
and not utilizing the suit accommodation from three years
before the institution of the suit as envisaged under
Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(d) of the M.P. Accommodation
Control Act, 1961. The trial Court after appreciation of
evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant-tenant
had deposited the arrears of rent within time after receipt
of notice of the suit and the plaintiff failed to establish its
case under Section 12(1)(d) of the Act and ultimately
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by
the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial
SA 264/1995
-2 –
Court has also been dismissed by the first appellate Court
and being aggrieved by which the appellant-plaintiff has
approached this Court.
3. The appeal has been admitted on the following
substantial questions:
“1. Whether in view of the Notification
No.F-24(4)-83 (XXXII-I) dt. 7/9/1989, the
accommodation possessed by the appellant/Public Trust is
exempted from the provisions of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961?
2. Whether in view of the fact that the tenancy of
the respondent was terminated by the appellant
by giving him 15 days’ notice u/s 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act, the appellant is
entitled to decree of eviction against the
respondent?”
4. During the course of argument learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that an application under Section
13(6) of the Act was moved on 23.12.2009, which is I.A.
No. 14185/2009. The application is placed on record. In the
said application it is stated that rent of the suit premises
was @ Rs.100/- per month and the respondent-tenant has
not deposited the rent for a period from 1.9.1993 to
31.12.2009 and has rendered himself defaulter and
therefore, the defence is liable to be struck off.
5. As the plaintiff has made specific averment in relation
to arrears of rent by moving an application due to
subsequent events, therefore, the substantial questions of
law framed while admitting the appeal need not be
answered in view of the subsequent events. Under the
circumstances, the substantial question for consideration
in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a
SA 264/1995
-3 –
decree of eviction against the defendant because of non-
payment of rent by the tenant-defendant?
6. It is seen that in the application filed by the appellant-
plaintiff, which is I.A. No.14185/2009, specific averment
has been made by the plaintiff that during pendency of the
first appeal as well as in the second appeal before this
Court the defendant has not deposited any rent and has
become a defaulter in respect of the rent to the tune of
Rs.19600/- and therefore, the appellant is entitled to a
decree of eviction on the ground as envisaged under
Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.
7. The respondent-defendant has not opposed the said
application either by filing reply to the said application or
during course of argument. In course of hearing no-one has
appeared on behalf of the respondents. The application
bringing on record subsequent events in relation to arrears
of rent was filed on 23.12.2009 and thereafter for a
considerable period no reply has been filed to the said
application. In these circumstances, I am of the considered
view that the plaintiff has succeeded in bringing home the
fact that the defendant-tenant is in arrears of rent and has
not deposited the rent of the suit accommodation for a
period from 1.9.1993 to 31.12.2009. Nothing is shown on
behalf of the respondent that during this long period any
attempt was made to deposit the rent. On the contrary,
neither any reply is filed nor any appearance has been
entered on behalf of the respondent to refute the allegation
made by the appellant in the application.
8. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to and
accordingly hold that the appellant-plaintiff shall be
entitled to a decree of eviction and arrears of rent against
the defendant as envisaged under Section 12(1)(a) and
SA 264/1995
-4 –
13(1) of the Act respectively. Let the fresh decree of
eviction and arrears of rent @Rs.100/- per month for a
period from 1.9.1993 to 31.12.2009 totalling to Rs.19,600/-,
as mentioned in the application be drawn accordingly. The
question framed by this Court is also answered
accordingly. The appeal stands allowed. No order as to
costs.
{R.K. GUPTA}
Judge
S/