Case: Ashok Kumar Mishra and Ors Vs. Goverdhan Bhai (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors

2. The Appellants are the landlords of a shop where Goverdhan Bhai, the predecessor of the Respondents was doing business. This tenancy was created in the year 1968 and was continued. The Appellants filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent according to the agreement for the period prior to the suit. At this stage, we are not concerned with the other grounds on which the suit was filed3. During the pendency of the suit the payment of rent is governed by Section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") which was in force in the town of Raipur. This Act was subsequently replaced by the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, in the year 2000. The two acts are in pari materia4. Before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, it was mainly argued by the Appellants that the rent due to be paid by the tenant was Rs. 250/- per month. This not having been paid at that rate, he was liable for eviction.

Court's reasoning:
We see no merit in this ground in view of the fact that the Trial Court had by an order dated 12.10.1985 fixed provisional rent at the rate of Rupees 150/- per month. It is not in dispute that the tenant continued to pay the rent at this rate. Merely because he admitted in his evidence that the agreed amount was Rupees 250/- per month is not a ground for evicting him, particularly in view of Section 13(2) of the Act5. Thus, a plain reading of the Section 13(2) requires the tenant to pay a provisional rent as fixed by the Court. The tenant in this case has made payment accordingly8. It is obvious from the aforesaid provisions that the tenant must during the pendency of the suit/appeal make payment of rent within one month of the service of writ of summons or notice of appeal or within such further time such Court may allow in this behalf. Further, he must thereafter, continue to deposit or pay rent by 15th of each succeeding month till the decision of the suit, appeal or proceedings as the case may be9. Sub-section 13(2) of the Act requires the tenant to pay such reasonable provisional rent as may be fixed by the Court in case of a dispute or doubt about the amount that must be paid by the tenant. As stated above, the amount in this case is Rupees 150/- per monthWe have perused the chart of payment of rent and we find that for the period from 09.08.2000 to 12.05.2011, the tenant paid rent on only three occasions, i.e. Rs. 2000/- on 09.08.2000, Rs. 2000/- on 09.12.2000 and Rs. 500/- on 12.02.2001. Thereafter, on 12.05.2011 the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 31,250/-, i.e. the amount of default rent of 5 months from January, 2011 to May, 2011. This in our view, amounts to an implicit admission of the fact that no rent was paid on the days it was due during this periodIt is not possible to accept this contention since they were clearly aware of the fact that they were living in tenanted premises and were bound to pay rent. In any case we find that even if the impleadment of legal representatives on 06.07.2009 there are defaults for a period of two years thereafter11. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the contention that the Respondents had paid rent regularly12. We are of the view that on a plain reading, this provision protects a tenant from eviction if a tenant makes deposit/payment as required by Sub-section 13(1) or 13(2) of the Act. In other words, if the tenant has complied with the provisions of Sub-section 13(1) and 13(2) in the matter of making payment, he is protected from eviction. It must be remembered that provisions of Section 13 of the Act shield a tenant from eviction if the tenant regularly pay rent after the suit is filed.Accordingly, it provides a locus penitential to the tenant. Sub-section 13(5) of the Act reiterates the protection by stating that if the tenant makes payment payment post-suit in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act, he shall not be liable for eviction. This Section does not confer the power on the court to condone the defaults in payment of rent after the suit is filed. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept this contention.