Chhatrkaran Singh vs Rajmabai

Samvatsar, J.—This is plaintiff''s revision-application.

The plaintiff held some Muafi Lands in Dharampuri Tehsil, Dhar District, which are in the occupation of the opponent as a tenant.

The petitioner filed the suit against the opponent to evict him from these lands. As the claim was resisted by the opponent, the Court framed issues and proceeded with the trial. During the pendency of the trial, the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub-tenants Protection Act being Act No. 32 of 1954 came into force and the opponent took advantage of this enactment and applied to the Court to stay further proceedings in the suit u/s 4 (1) of the said Act. He also deposited arrears of rent for 2 years as required by that provision.

On 3-7-1956 the plaintiff submitted an application to the Court in which he alleged that the rent for the year 1955 had also become due from the defendant and he should be called upon to deposit it in Court; that in case the defendant declined to do so, the stay order be vacated and proceedings in suit be continued. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff had not asked for future rent. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff has preferred this revision-application.

Section 4 (6) provides that where a suit or other proceeding is stayed under Sub-section (1), the tenant shall, so long as this Act is in force, deposit or continue to deposit in the court, for payment to the Inamdar or the Muafidar, as the case may be, each year''s rent, as it accrues due within a period of two months from the date on which it becomes payable or such further period not exceeding two months as may be allowed by the Court. This Sub-section can be applied if two conditions exist viz. (i) that the suit or proceeding is stayed u/s 4 (1) and (ii) that the rent for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit has fallen due. It is not necessary for invoking aid of this Sub-section that the plaintiff should have asked for a decree for future rent. No plaintiff will ordinarily ask for such a relief in a suit to eject his tenant.

The provisions of Section 4 (6) appear to have been enacted to safeguard the interest of the landlord. The Legislature had when enacting Act No. 32 of 1954 not made up its mind as regards the period during which it would remain in force and to avoid difficulties of limitation and of payment of accumulated arrears, this provision is apparently made. Both the conditions prescribed by the Sub-section exist in this case. The lower Court was therefore not justified in rejecting the application and refusing to call upon the defendant to deposit rent for the year 1955 which had fallen due after the suit was filed.

I allow the revision-application and set aside the order passed by the lower court and remand the case with a direction that the trial court should consider the plaintiff''s application in the light of the provisions of Section 4(6) and the observations made in this judgment and dispose it of according to law.

Under the circumstances of this case, I pass no order as to costs.