SMT. SHAKUNTALA AGRAWAL & Ors. v. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 has clearly held that Sub-section (2)

SMT. SHAKUNTALA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL R/O HOUSE NO. 57, NEW MLA COLONY, NEAR DEPO SQUARE, BHOPAL, DISTRICT- BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH) (BY SMT. SHOBHA MENON, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS. ANCHAL SARAF, ADVOCATE) .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved of order dated 12.1.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned III Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhopal in RCS No.826-A/2018 rejecting an application under Section 13(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 8/26/2022 3:28:18 PM 2 though there is a rent agreement available on record as Annexure P-4 in which rent is mentioned as Rs 80,000/- per month and mechanism for annual increase is provided in the agreement, He further submits that there was an oral agreement substituting the written registered agreement reducing the rent to Rs. 40,000/- per month and therefore application under Section 13(2) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act was filed by the tenant-defendant. Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that when there is a registered document available on record providing for physically mentioning the quantum of rent and the mechanism for annual enhancement, there is no ground for disputing the same and a written agreement cannot be substituted with the so called oral agreement. It is further submitted that in fact there is no pleading about the oral agreement in the petition and that is the fiction created by learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to vacate the suit premises within the period of six months and therefore, some security be furnished to protect his interest. This submission is not disputed by Ms. Shobha Menon, learned counsel. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition can be disposed of upholding the impugned order that the petitioner will continue to deposit rent before the Trial Court in terms of the agreement (Annexure P-4) and in case Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced by rival parties, come to the conclusion that there was any oral agreement reducing the rent, then security will be furnished by the plaintiff that in case of such decision she will be bound to pay the difference of the rent in favour of the tenant. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not able to pay arrears of rent. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 8/26/2022 3:28:18 PM 3 If the petitioner is not able to pay the arrears of rent, then consequences will follow as provided under the Accommodation Control Act, but in case he deposits the arrears of rent within thirty days from today and pays the rent as per the terms and conditions of the agreement (Annexure P-4) regularly, then before permitting withdrawal of such rent the Trial Court shall take an undertaking from the plaintiff that in case of a decision against the plaintiff as to the quantum of the rent, the plaintiff will indemnify the tenant and shall pay back the difference of rent so determined by the Court within thirty days of such determination. As far as the present miscellaneous petition is concerned, there is no error apparent on the face of record calling for interference in the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 13(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in view of the admitted registered agreement of rent between the parties as is available on record. The Supreme Court in Jamnalal & Others versus Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 has clearly held that Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 takes care of the situation when there is dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant and directs fixation of a reasonable provisional rent in relation to the accommodation, which will be a summary enquiry by the Court. In the present case, it is evident that there is a registered rent agreement between the landlord and tenant, the execution of which is not subject-matter of dispute. The tenant has cleverly raised a plea that after execution of the said agreement, an oral agreement was executed and the rent was reduced to half. As far as the rate of rent is concerned, that is always fixed through a Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 8/26/2022 3:28:18 PM 4 registered agreement. Merely subsequent incapacity to pay the rent cannot be said to be a point of dispute. The dispute would have existed if there would have been no agreement or after execution of the agreement, there would not have been any renewal of the agreement. A dispute not based on any cogent evidence cannot be said to be a real dispute. Even otherwise, when there is a registered agreement then the plea that it was superseded by an oral agreement is nothing but a dishonest intention on the part of the tenant. Thus, when unless that agreement is rescinded, it cannot be said that there is any dispute as to the quantum of rent. I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 12.1.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned III Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhopal in RCS No.826-A/2018. Accordingly, this miscellaneous petition fails and is dismissed. VD (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 8/26/2022 3:28:18 PM