TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....einafter referred to as, 'the suit accommodation') from the landlord on rent of Rs. 30/-p.m. which was later enhanced to Rs. 40/- p.m. The landlord filed the suit (Civil Suit No. 63-A/86) in the court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Shivpuri, against the tenant for eviction of the suit accommodation on two grounds (i) default in payment of rent of Rs. 1080/- and claiming total sum of Rs. 1210/- said to be due, from the tenant - under Section 12(1)(a) and (ii) encroachment on a portion of land not let to him and raising construction thereon (referred to as, 'the disputed portion')- under Section 12(1)(o) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The tenant pleaded that the rent due was deposited after the service of notice of the suit and that the alleged unauthorised construction was made with due permission of the landlord. 4. The trial court gave the benefit of sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act to the tenant on the first ground and passed a decree directing the tenant to vacate the disputed portion and to pay to the landlord damages at the rate of Rs. 10/- P.M. for the said portion within two months from the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel appearing for the landlord, argued that the findings recorded by the first appellate court were wholly erroneous and that the High Court committed no error of law in recording findings on the points which were not determined by the first appellate court. The judgment of the High Court, it was submitted did not warrant any interference. 9. To appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of clause (a) and (o) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, which are relevant for our purpose. They are set out hereunder: "12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only namely:- (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner, (b) to (n) *** *** *** ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deem fit. Sub-section (6) which is supplement to sub-section (5) of Section 13, says that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount as required by that section, the Court may order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit, appeal or proceedings, as the case may be. 12. Clause (o) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 contains yet another ground for eviction of a tenant. It provides that if the tenant has also taken possession of such portion of accommodation which is not included in the accommodation let to him, without the written permission of the landlord, and which the tenant has not evicted in spite of a written notice of the landlord in that behalf, he may seek eviction of the tenant from the suit accommodation. It may be apt to notice here that the said clause is controlled by sub-section (11) of Section 12 of the Act which forbids the court from making an order of eviction of the tenant on the said ground if the tenant within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the court, vacates the portion of the accommodation not let to him and pays to the landlord such amount by way of compensation as it may direct. A c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Second Additional Judge to Distt. Judge, Shivpur, against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the landlord filed an application under Section 13 (6) of the Act alleging that the tenant defaulted in depositing the rent during the pendency of the appeal but the tenant did not refute the allegation by putting forth any acceptable explanation. The first appellate court on misconception of law wrongly placed the burden on the landlord to prove that the rent was not paid during the pendency of the appeal and erroneously dismissed that ground. On the question of non-compliance of the decree of the trial court in regard to vacating the portion unauthorisedly occupied by him (tenant) and paying the compensation, the first appellate court held that the landlord had not shown that by constructing a temporary shed and converting it into a room, the value of the suit accommodation had been reduced or its nature had been changed or in any way the interest of the landlord had been reduced or its nature had been changed or in any way the interest of the landlord had been prejudiced. The first appellate court not only failed to notice the distinction between clauses (m) and (o); pointed ....