Ravish Vaidh vs Mathew Pulkin

Hon''ble Shri N.K. Mody, J.—Being aggrieved by the order dated 03/11/11 passed by XV ADJ, Indore in Civil Suit No.1-A/11 whereby dispute raised u/s 13(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was decided and the petitioner was directed to deposit the interim rent @ Rs.12,000/-per month and arrear of Rs.1,14,000/-, present petition has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that on 05/01/11 respondent filed a suit for eviction alleging that the petitioner is tenant in the suit accommodation @ Rs.15,000/-per month and is in arrears w.e.f. 01/01/10 inspite of demand. It was prayed that the suit filed by the petitioner be decreed for eviction and also for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement wherein it was denied that the petitioner is tenant @ Rs.15,000/-per month. However, it was alleged that the tenancy is @ Rs.12,000/-per month. It was alleged that the respondent has entered into an agreement to sell the suit property and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-was paid by the petitioner to the respondent. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Upon an application filed u/s 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act after holding summery enquiry learned Court below passed the impugned order, against which present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Court below committed error in not adjusting the entire amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner towards arrears of rent. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

From perusal of the record it is evident that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order has taken into consideration the agreement dated 24/06/09, which took place between the parties and also the subsequent documents. Learned Court below also found that in fact prima facie it appears that Rs.3,50,000/-has been paid by the petitioner instead of Rs.5,00,000/-and as per agreement Rs.2,00,000/-was paid by the petitioner in advance and as per clause-11 of the said agreement in case of default in payment of balance amount the respondent was entitled to forfeit the amount of earnest money. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned order. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same stands dismissed.