P.L. Nagarkar vs Dinesh Kumar Jain

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 21.01.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 221-A/12 by the District Judge, Bhopal affirming the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Case No. 13/RCA/2010-11 dated 28.05.2012 rejecting the application for amendment filed by the appellant.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that subsequent to the filing of the reply, the appellant came into the possession of a document of the municipal corporation indicating that the house in question was recorded in the name of some person other than the respondent and therefore, he filed an application for amendment of his written statement and for bringing the said document on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh and Others, etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another, etc., that the amendment was necessary and therefore, could not have been rejected by the courts below.

From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court and the Rent Controlling Authority it is apparent that the appellant had himself filed an application u/s 25 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act wherein he has stated that he had been inducted as a tenant by the respondent on the strength of an agreement entered into with the respondent on 3.2.2010 and that thereafter he was paying rent to the respondent regularly since February, 2010 and he had also prayed that he be permitted to deposit the rent of the month of January to March, 2011 and future rent at the rate of 2500/- per month. The court below taking into consideration the aforesaid admission on the part of the appellant has recorded a finding to the effect that the respondent falls within the definition of the landlord as provided under the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and therefore the issue raised by the appellant regarding ownership of the house was irrelevant for adjudication of the dispute.

Having gone through the aforesaid orders passed by the First Appellate Court as well as Rent Controlling Authority and having perused the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra), I am of the considered opinion that in view of the specific provisions of the Act defining landlord, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the courts below warranting interference by this court. Moreso, as the judgment in the case of Baldev (supra) has no applicability to the present case in view of the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.