1 W.P. No.5605/11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul Writ Petition No.5605/11 Chandra Mohan Pandey -Vs- Rajkumar Jain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.C.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R ( /10/2011) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 20.7.2011, whereby the application under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was allowed by the Court below. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Court below should have first enquired about the matter and should have fixed the interim rent before proceeding further. In absence of fixing the rent, the Court should not have closed the right of defence of the present petitioner. 3. Shri N.C.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 1998(6) Supreme 284 (Brij Bhushan Vs. Kewal Kumar) and 2003 (II) MPJR 17 (Bala Saheb Vs Yugal Kishore and Others). 4. Shri N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Court below. 5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. 6. The Court below has given a specific finding of fact that the present petitioner has admitted in the pleadings that Rs.5200/- 2 W.P. No.5605/11 was the rent fixed on which he was residing as a tenant. On the basis of this fact the Court below has assigned detailed reasons that the present petitioner has no where refuted that Rs.5200/- was the rent fixed per month. The Court below has given a further finding that if the plaintiff would have demanded Rs.6500/- and present petitioner's stand would have been that the rent should have been lesser or Rs.5200/- per month, in that eventuality, the Court below should have exercised powers under Section 13(2) of the said Act for fixing the interim rent. Since it was not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner was paying rent to the tune of Rs.5200/- per month, there was no question of fixing interim rent between the parties. More so, none have preferred any such application for fixing the interim rent before the Court below. By assigning aforesaid reasons, the Court below has invoked Section 13(6) of the said Act and allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. The judgment in Brij Bhushan's case (supra) has no application in the fact situation of the present case. In the present case, since the amount of rent was not in dispute, the said judgment will have no application which deal with the question whether the amount deposited by the tenant under Section 6-A was a valid tender. The judgment reported in 2003 (II) MPJR 17 (supra) also has no application in the fact situation of the present case. In the said case the appellant had deposited the rent for whole year in advance every year and thus, the Court gave the finding that he was acting in such a manner that Section 13 of the Act does not exist. It is further held that calculation mistake in depositing the rent may be because of some misunderstanding. Since bonafides of the tenant were clear in the said case, the interference was made in the revision by this Court. In the present case, as analyzed above, the question of rent was not in dispute, 3 W.P. No.5605/11 nor it was in dispute that the petitioner has not deposited the rent from December, 2009. Therefore, I am unable to hold that the Court below has given an erroneous finding by invoking Section 13(6) of the said Act. Apart from this, this is settled in law that another view is possible, is not a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. I do not find any patent illegality, jurisdictional error or judicial impropriety which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution as held by the Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. 8. In the result, interference is declined. Petition is dismissed. No costs. (Sujoy Paul) Judge Dt: /10/11 (Yog)