Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court.


Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Gidwani And Anr. vs Anil Somani on 15 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (4) MPHT 155
Author: R Dixit
Bench: R Dixit


ORDER

R.B. Dixit, J.

1. Petitioners/defendants have come up in this revision against order dated 15-2-2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 40-A/97 by Fourth Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior, thereby striking out defence of the petitioners under Section 13 (6) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

2. It is not disputed that in a suit for eviction brought by plaintiff-landlord against defendants-tenants the trial Court vide its order dated 25-9-99 decided the dispute regarding arrears of rent to be deposited by the tenants. However, the petitioners-tenants failed to deposit the entire amount within the time prescribed by the Court and after expiry of the said prescribed period, the defendants moved further application under Section 151, C.P.C. not only for extending the period, but also prayed for adjustment of certain amounts of rent, which was alleged to have been previously remitted by money orders. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-landlord also filed an application under Section 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act to strike out the defence of the defendants as they have failed to deposit the entire amount of rent within the prescribed period. The learned trial Court has decided both the applications vide the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 151, C.P.C. and allowing the application under Section 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and thereby struck out the defence of the petitioners.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel of the petitioners before me that the learned trial Court has erred in not deciding their application under Section 151, C.P.C. first which was pending earlier to the application under Section 13 (6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel of the respondent that the learned trial Court has committed no material irregularity in deciding both the applications as the point for determination was common while deciding such applications. In my opinion, since the dispute regarding payment of rent and the amount to be deposited was already decided by the trial Court vide its order dated 25-9-99, what remains to be decided in the subsequent application under Section 151, C.P.C. was whether the grounds raised for extending the period for payment are justified before defence of the tenants is to be struck out. There is nothing wrong in deciding both the points in a single order.

4. It has to be noticed that vide their application under Section 151, C.P.C., the petitioners wanted to reopen and reagitate certain dispute regarding arrears of rent which was already decided by earlier order of the trial Court dated 15-9-1999. Their prayer for extension of time for payment was in nature of a reopening of the dispute which was already set at rest by the order of the Court referred hereinabove. Their application, therefore, was not bona fide and in the circumstances was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. Since the petitioners had failed to deposit the arrears of rent in time prescribed by the trial Court, the trial Court was further justified in striking out the defence of the tenants-petitioners.

5. The scope of revision for consideration of the question of such dispute about the striking out of the defence is limited. It has been held in case of Ram Kumar v. Sarti Devi and Ors., reported in 1976 JLJ 691, that there are two remedies open to the defendant whose defence is struck out under Section 13 (6) of the Act. One is that he can come up in revision and the other is that he can raise the objection under Section 105, C.P.C. in the Appellate Court. The two remedies are different in their scope. A revision lies only on the question of jurisdiction, i.e. it must be shown that in exercise of its jurisdiction, the trial Court acted with illegality or with material irregularity, which means either any contravention of some law or in violation of the prescribed procedure. No interference can be made under Section 115 C.P.C. merely on the ground that the discretion should have been exercised in another way.

5. Since the petitioners have failed to point out any jurisdictional error on the part of the trial Court, in the circumstances, no interference is warranted by way of revision in the impugned order.

6. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed accordingly.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.191 seconds.