Prakash Shrivastava, J.:— Heard finally.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-tenants challenging the identically worded orders of the trial courts dated 20 th August, 2014 whereby the respondents application u/S.13(6) of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been decided and the petitioners have been given time to deposit the rent before passing any order of striking off the defence.
3. In brief, the respondent landlord has filed the suit for eviction against the petitioner and the petitioner after service of summons had entered appearance and filed the written statement and denied the landlord tenant relationship and had not deposited the rent in terms of the requirement of Sec.13 of the Act, therefore, the respondents had filed the application u/S.13(6) of the Act for striking off the defence which has been decided by the trial court.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the landlord tenant relationship has been denied by the petitioner, therefore, till a finding is recorded by the court that the petitioner is tenant of the respondents, the provisions of Sec.13 do not come into operation and the petitioner cannot be required to deposit the rent. He has further submitted that an agreement was executed for sale of the accommodation with the petitioner but thereafter it was sold to the respondent, hence the petitioner has filed the separate suit and in these circumstances the petitioner cannot be asked to deposit the rent.
5. As against this, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the trial court has passed a detailed reasoned order while deciding respondent's application u/S.13(6) of the Act. The trial court has noted that the summons in the suit was served and the petitioner had entered appearance on 26/8/2013 and had also filed a written statement on 10/1/2014 but the rent in terms of Sec.13(1) of the Act was not deposited. The respondent is claiming striking off the defence u/S.13(6) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was arrears of rent since 1/2/2012 and even after service of summons in the suit he had not deposited the rent. The trial court has noted various judgments on the point and has reached to the conclusion that even if the petitioner has denied the landlord tenant relationship, then also for seeking the protection u/S.13(1), he is required to deposit the rent. The trial court has passed a balanced order by taking the view that right of defence is a valuable right and has granted time to the petitioner to deposit the rent in the court and has further protected rights of the parties by holding that the respondents will not withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner and whosoever is found to be entitled on the final disposal of the suit will receive the amount so deposited.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for petitioner is that since the petitioner has denied the landlord tenant relationship, therefore, he cannot be asked to deposit the rent till the trial court records a finding on landlord tenant relationship against the respondent. Such an argument cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position that in an eviction suit even if the defendants denied the landlord tenant relationship then also he is required to comply with the provisions of Sec.13(1) of the Act and the discretion u/S.13(1) cannot be exercised in favour of such a defendant who does not want to deposit the rent on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. (See 1999 MPACJ 233).
8. The division bench of this court in the matter of Manaram v. Omprakash reported in 1992 MPACJ 217 has held that once a suit for ejectment, on any of the grounds referred to in section 12, is instituted, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 13 operate against the defendant, and the Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with any claim or question arising under any of the provisions of section 13, no matter whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or denied by the defendant. This Court in the matter of Qurban Ali v. Mohanlal reported in 1995 MPACJ 28 has held that where the relationship as landlord and tenant is specifically denied by a person, sued as a tenant, this means that he did not desire to take any protection under the Act and on non compliance of the provisions enacted u/S.13, the trial court can order the defence to be struck out. In the matter of Rajendra Kumar Jain v. Ashok Kumar Mandiliya reported in 2003 (2) MPACJ 121 this Court has held that even if the defendant is denying that the plaintiff is his landlord then also he is bound to deposit the rent as required u/S.13(1) of the Act. In the matter of Keshav Dubey v. Chandra Mohan Agnihotri reported in 2008 (3) MPWN 6 this court has held that provisions of Sec.13(6) comes into play on non deposit/non payment of rent and denial of relationship by tenant-defendant is immaterial in such a case.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid position in law, I am of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any patent illegality in passing the impugned order.
10. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
11. Therefore, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Signed copy of this order be kept in the file of WP No. 7683/2014 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected Writ Petition.