Pankaj Kohli vs. Sudheer Kumar Gupta

Held

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2022. The Court reasoned that while Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, empowers the court to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to pay rent regularly, in the present case, the petitioner had informed the court that he had deposited the entire rent amount. Although the respondent's application under Section 151 of the CPC indicated defaults in rent payment, the order striking off the defence had already been passed. Subsequently, the petitioner had been depositing rent regularly. Considering the stage of the suit, which was at the defence evidence stage, and the petitioner's intention to pay the rent, the Court found that in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserved an opportunity to defend his case. The ratio decidendi is that even after an order striking off defence for rent default, a High Court may grant an opportunity to defend if the suit is at the defence evidence stage and the tenant shows intention to pay rent, subject to costs. The operative direction was to set aside the order striking off defence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 11,000/- to the respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Second Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jabalpur. This order struck off the petitioner's right to defence in a civil suit for eviction filed by the respondent, the landlord, in 2018. The grounds for eviction were bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent. The petitioner contended that an agreement stipulated a monthly rent of ₹8,500 with a 10% annual increase, and that he had been a tenant since 2015. The respondent filed an application under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for closure of defence due to alleged rent default. Despite the petitioner submitting details of rent deposits, the Trial Court struck off his defence. The petitioner sought to set aside this order, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing the Trial Court's order was justified and citing High Court precedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in striking off the petitioner's right of defence under Section 13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, despite the petitioner's submission of rent deposit details and the suit being at the stage of defence evidence? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's order was erroneous as it struck off his right to defence despite his submission of rent deposit details. He contended that in the interest of justice, and considering the stage of the suit, he should be granted an opportunity to defend his case. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/S Fashion World vs Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.7325/2022), though he acknowledged the issue of GST deposit in that case was not relevant here. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the Trial Court had rightly passed the order and that it did not require interference. He relied on this Court's decision in W.P. No. 7435 of 2011 (Ramakant Ratner Vs. Gopal Prasad Sharma) concerning denial of landlord-tenant relationship and Devabhai and Ors. vs. Bhamarlal and Ors. (1977 0 MPLC 446) regarding the implementation of Section 13(1)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, though the latter was noted as not relevant to the present case.