334 SHY AMCHARAN SHARMA v. DHARAMDAS·

CmNNAPPA REDDY, J.-The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises on two grounds : (i) failure to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 158.25 despite service of notice of m:.and and (ii) bonafide requirement of premises for landlord's per so.oal occupation. The second ground was rejected by all the sub In ordinate courts and we are no longer concerned V>ith that ground. reg11rd to the first ground, the trial court found that the tenant was - B c D E F G • A c E F G H 336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19 80) 2 S.C.lt. • in arrears of payment of rent but that the tenant was entitled to the protection of s. 12(3) of t11e MadhYa Pradesh Accommodation Cen tro! Act, 1961, as the tenant had deposited the arrears' of rent Within the time allowed by the Court on his application. When the apPeal preferred by the landlord was pending before the Additional District Judge, Satna, the tenant filed an application for condonation of delay in depositing the rent, month by month, which had become payable It after the filing of the suit, as stipulated by s. 13 (1) of the Act. appears that, on several occasions, when the suit and the appeal were~ pending before the trial court and the appellate court respectively, the tenant had deposited the monthly rent a day or two or three, be- yond the prescribed date. The amount had been received by the court and drawn out by the landlord, apparently without any protest. Taking advantage of the filing of the tenant's application for condonation of delay, the landlord contended that the court had no power to extend the time for deposit of the monthly rent and that he was entitled to a decree for eviction consequent on the non-compliance with the provi- sions of s. 13 ( 1) of the Madhya Pradesh . Accommodation Control Act. The appellate court negatived the. landlord's contention and dis- missed the appeal. The landlord preferred a Second Appeal to the . High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court, holding that the court had no power to extend time, decreed the suit for eviction. The tenant, having obtained special leave, has appealed to this Court. t 1· Shri Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant, raised two. con- tentions before us. The first contention was that the High Court was · 1 .. wrong in holding that the Court had no power to condone the delay ~­ in depositing the. monthly rent falling due after the filing of the suit for eviction. The second contention was that, in the circumstances of the case, the respondent must be considered to have waived or abandoned the right to insist on dis-entitling the tenant of the protec- tion to which he was otherwise entitled. Shri Naik, learned counsel for the respondent, contended to the contrary on both the questions. The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, was enacted, as recited in the statement of objects and reasons, "for the purpose of controlling, letting of and rents of residential and · non- i.. residential accommodation and giving adequate protection to tenants of such accommodation in areas where there is dearth of accommo dation". Section 12(1) of the Act provides that no suit shall be·lited i11 any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accom.i!i<i dation except on one or more of the grounds specified therein. Several grounds are specified, such as, .failure to pay the arrears of rent lifter the service of notice of demand, unlawful sub-letting of the whole >Or f 1" ' _sHYAM CHARAN v. DHARAMDAS (Chinnappa Reddy,!.) 337 • ' part of the accommodation, creation of a nuisance, bonafide require- ment of the accommodation by the landlord for his own occupation, causing of substantial damage to the accommodation etc. etc. The ground with which we are concerned is that mentioned in s. 12(1) (a) and -it is : "that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of re11t legally reco.verable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been ~erved on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner". Thus, where ~a tenant is in arrears of rent, a landlord is obliged, before instituting a suit for eviction on that ground, to serve a notice of demand calling upon the tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent with- in two months of the date of service of the notice. S. 12(3) provides that an order for the eviction of a tenant sl1all not be mnde on the ground specified ins. 12(1)(a), if the tenant makes payment or de- posit as required bys. 13. S. 13, sub-ss. (1), (5) and (6) which arc relevant for the present purpose are as follows : ,, "13. (1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the grounds referred to in s. 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of the writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, ·deposit in the Conrt or pay to t11e landlord an amount calcu lated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for which the teqant may have made default including the period susequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. ( 5) If a tenant makes deposit or payment as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), no decree or order shall be made by the Court for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground of default in the pay ment of rent by the tenant, but the Court may allow such cost as it may deem fit to the landlord. (6) If a tenant fails to deposit or pay_ any amount as required by this section, the Court may order the defence again~! eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the . hearing of the suit." "1: ' ,! /A . 8 c D E F G H 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. A • c D E F G H )I • It is true that in order to entitle a tenant to claim the protectioIT of s. 12(3), the tenant has to make a payment or deposit as required bys. 13, that is to say, the arrears of rent should be paid or deposited within one month of the service of the writ of summons on the tenant or within such further time as may be allowed by the court, and should further deposit or pay every month by the 15th, a sum equivalent to· It does not, however, follow that failure to pay or deposit the rent. a sum equivalent to the rent by the 15th of every' month, subsequent to the filing of the suit for ~viction, will entitle the landlord, str~gh~t-. away, to a decree for ev1ct10n. The consequences. of the depoSit paym~nt and non-payment or noncdeposit are prescribed by sub-ss. (5) and (6) of s. 13. Since there is a statutory provision expressly prescribing thei consequence of non-deposit or non-payment of the rent, we must look to and be guided by that provision only to deter mine what shall follow. S. 13 (6) does not clothe the landlord with an automatic right to a decree for eviction; nor does it visit the tenant with the penalty of a decree for eviction being straightaway passed against him. S. 13 ( 6) vests, in the court, the discretion to order the In other words, the Court, striking out of the defence against eviction. having regard to all the circumstances of the case, may or may not ~trike out the defence. If s. 13 were to be construed as mandatory and not as vesting a discretion in the Court, it might resnlt in the situation that a tenant who has deposited the arrears of rent within the . time stipulated by s. 13 ( 1) but who fails to deposit monthly rent on a single occasion for. a cause beyond his control may have his defence struck out and be liable to ·summary eviction. We•~ - . '4.. think that s. 13 quite clearly confers a discretion, on the court, to strike out or not to strike out the defence, if default is made in deposit or payment of rent as required by s. 13 (1). If the court has the dis cretion .not to strike out the defence of a te6ant committing default in payment or deposit as required by s. 13 (1), the court surely has the further discretion to condone the default and extend the time for pay ment or deposit. Such a discretion is a necessary implication of the discretion not to strike out the defence. Another construction may lead, in some cases, to a perversion of the object of the Act namely, 'the adequate protection of the tenant'. S. 12(3) entitles a tenant to claim protection against eviction on the ground specified in s. 12(1) (a) if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by s. 13. On our construction of s. 13 that the Court has the power to extend the· time for payment or deposit, it must follow that payment or deposit within the extended time will entitle the tenant to claim the protection of s. 12(3). One of the arguments advanced before us was that there· was no express· provision for extensioh of time for deposit or payment thereafter I t. <f· SHYAM CHARAN v. DHARAMDAS (Chinnappa Ruddy, /.} 339• II of monthly rent snbsequent to the filing of the suit whereas there was such express provision for payment or deposit of arrear& of rent that bad accrued before the filing of the suit. Obviously, express provision for extension of time for deposit or payment of rent falling due after the filing of the suit was not made in s. 13 (I) as the consequence of non-payment was proposed to be dealt with by a separate sub-section. namely s. 13(6). Express provision had to be made for extension of time for deposit or payment of rent that bad accrued prier to the filing of the suit, since that would ordinarily be at a very early stage __ ~. of the suit when a written statement might not be filed and there would, )II · therefore, be no question of striking out the defence and, would be no question of s. 13 (6) covering the situat[on. so, In Jagdlsh Kapoor v. New Education Society('), a full bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that s. 13(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act did not make it obligatory for the court to strike out the defence but vested in the court a discretion to strike out or not to strike _out the defence. Having so hefd, the full bench stopped short of giving full effect to their conclusion by holding that the Court could condone the default and refuse to strike out the defence but it could not give the benefit of s. 12(3) or 13(5) to the tenant. We do not see any justification for adopting this narrow con struction of ss. 12 and 13. court under s. 13(6) must be held to imply_ a discretion to condone the delay and extend the time in making deposit or payment under s. 13(1). Jn B. C. Kame v. Nem Chand .Tai11('), a tenant had· committed _ .:_l._ default both in payment of arrears as well as in payment of the monthly· : . ' rent which became payable after the filing of the suit. This Court took the view that on an application made by the tenant time for deposit or payment could be extended. Though the observations made by the Court read as if they were made with reference to the default in pay- ment of arrears, a reference to the facts of the case as set out in the yory judgment shows that there was default both in payment of the arrears of rent that had accrued before the filing of the suit and in pay- ment of the monthly rent that fall due after the filing of tl're suit . In our view the discretion given I • c E F • We are accordingly of the opinion that the Court has the jurisdic . ! tion to extend time for deposit or payment of monthly rent falling due In that view it is not necessaiy to express .. af1.er the filing of the suit. our opinion on the question of waiver or abandonment. The appeal is allowed with costs and the suit for eviction is dismissed. N.V.K. Or (1967) Jabalpur L.J. 859. (2) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 981. Af'Pe-at allowed. II-