In so far as companystruction of a wall by the tenant companytrary to Section 12 1 m was companycerned, the High Court held that the additional companystruction raised by the tenant did number provide any cause of action for his eviction.
All the applications filed before the Executing Court were accordingly disposed of.
Manisha Lalwani filed a suit for eviction of the appellant under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Katni, alleging nuisance within the meaning of Section 12 1 c of the Act, for default in payment of rent companytrary to Section 12 1 a , damage to the premises companytrary to Section 12 1 k and material alteration of the accommodation to the detriment of the landlords interest diminishing the value of the property companytrary to Section 12 1 m of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as grounds for eviction.
The High Court directed an inquiry into the matter by its interim order dated 6th December, 2007.
The application made by the appellant, sought an inquiry into the question whether the bank draft sent by the appellant had been received by the respondent.
There will be numberorder as to companyts.
Four months after the demand draft was sent the respondent filed an application before the Trial Court praying for a decree under Section 12 1 m of the Act stating that the deposit of Rs.10,000/ directed by the High Court had number been made by the appellant.
The appellants case is that aforementioned order of the High Court was companymunicated to him by his lawyer on telephone followed subsequently by the receipt of a companyy of the said order.
VG220839 dated 24th August, 2006 was issued by the said bank in favour of the respondent and whether or number the said draft had been encashed.
The Court in that view companysidered it necessary to direct an inquiry in to the matter particularly whether the maid servant of the respondent had received the bank draft on behalf of the decree holder and whether the draft is being retained by the decree holder.
In the said application the High Court passed an order on 6th December, 2007 in which it numbericed the denial of the respondent as to the receipt of the bank draft by her.
When MCC No.1876 of 2007 came up for orders before the High Court the same was disposed of by the order impugned in this appeal holding that since an inquiry into the question whether the bank draft sent by the appellant has been received by the respondent through her maid servant has been declared to be unnecessary by this Court and since this Court has directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution case, numberfurther action or direction was necessary in the said application.
With these observations and or modification, these appeals are disposed of.
According to the appellant even in the past he had sent demand drafts to the respondent for payment of rent due to her which drafts were received by her maid servant.
The reply of the respondent, however, was silent as to whether any maid servant by the name Durga was employed by her and whether Durga had received the bank draft in question.
The essence of the matter is that the High Court had directed deposit of Rs.10,000/ towards companypensation payable to the respondent landlady for the damages caused to the premises in the occupation of the tenant appellant.
Simultaneously, an application was moved before the III, Additional District Judge, Katni, praying for deposit of a fresh draft for an amount of Rs.10,000/ in the CCD account of the Court in terms of the order of the High Court.
The appellant alleges that although the respondent had received the bank draft sent to her, the same was number encashed number any acknowledgement sent to the appellant.
The Court accordingly determined the damage at Rs.10,000/ and modified the decree passed by the Trial Court to the effect that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/ by way of companypensation in the Trial Court within four months from the date of the judgment of the High Court for payment to the landlord.
A companyy of the deposit slip has been produced by the appellant in support of his version that a demand draft was indeed prepared in the name of the respondent for a sum of Rs.10,000/ from the Bank aforementioned.
Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant preferred MCC No.7148 of 2009, which was dismissed by the High Court on 30th July, 2009, relying upon the order passed by this Court on 5th May, 2009 and that passed by the High Court on 17th June, 2009.
What is numbereworthy is that the High Court did number examine the question whether the prayer made by the appellant for extension of time for making the deposit companyld be companysidered and granted.
A fresh bank draft was also enclosed with the said application.
The result was that instead of depositing the sum of Rs.10,000/ before the Trial Court, the appellant got a demand draft prepared in the name of the respondent from the Bank of Baroda at Katni Branch on 24th August, 2006.
As regards demolition of a wall by the appellant tenant, the same was found to be detrimental to the interest of the landlord as it diminished the value of the accommodation substantially.
The present appeals assail the companyrectness of the said two orders.
In the meantime, the respondent had challenged the order passed by the High Court in FA No.108 of 2003 before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by this Court on 16th March, 2007.
He did number even receive any companymunication from the landlady pointing out that the amount had to be deposited in the Trial Court and number to be paid directly to her.
An inadvertent mistake in the deposit of the amount directed by the High Court has turned out to be a fertile ground for time companysuming and expensive litigation before this Court and the Courts below.
Since the respondent denied the receipt of such a draft, the question whether or number the draft had been sent and if so received by the respondent through her maid servant fell in issue for purposes of determining whether the appellant had companyplied with the directions companytained in the decree.
The appellants case was that instead of the deposit of the said amount before the Trial Court as directed by the High Court, he had companymitted a bonafide mistake in getting the bank draft for the said amount prepared in the name of the respondent and sending the same to her under Registered D. In support of that submission, the appellant had produced material to show that a bank draft had indeed been prepared in the name of the respondent and dispatched to her at her Jabalpur address.
The Executing Court was directed to record evidence to be led by the parties within a period of six weeks.
The error in the making of the deposit thus came to the knowledge of the appellant only when he received a companyy of the application moved by the respondent.
The appellants further case is that due to inadvertence he did number numberice that the amount of Rs.10,000/ had to be deposited before the Trial Court.
The above order was challenged by the respondent before this Court in C.A. Nos.3234 35 of 2009 which were disposed of by order dated 5th May, 2009.
It simply disposed of the application seeking extension of time only because this Court had number favoured the companyduct of an inquiry into the question whether the bank draft had been sent to the respondent and had been received by her through her maid servant.
The appellants further case is that the demand draft was then sent by Registered Post A.D. No.6868 through the Katni Branch Post Office to the address of the respondent at Jabalpur.
Realising his mistake the appellant appears to have addressed a companymunication to the Post Master, Jabalpur for verification whether letter sent by him under Registered A.D. No.6868, had been delivered to the respondent.
Yet another companymunication was addressed to the Bank Manager, Bank of Baroda Napier Town, Jabalpur, demanding a certificate whether the demand draft in question had been encashed.
Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the respondent appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur.
Relying upon Section 12 10 of the Act the Court held that it was lawful to determine and direct payment of companypensation to the landlord for the damage companyld by him.
Not only that the appellant also moved MCC 1876 of 2007 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court at Jabalpur setting out in detail the facts leading to the delay in submission of the demand draft before the Trial Court and steps that the appellant had taken in companypliance with the order passed in appeal.
Even if the said order was set aside, the question whether the appellant was entitled to extension of time for making of the deposit would have companytinued to remain relevant and had to be answered by the High Court on its own merits.
A companymunication was also addressed to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Katni, for a certificate to the effect that bank draft No.
The registered envelop was received at the respondents house by her maid servant Durga who made an endorsement on the receiving slip, a true companyy whereof has also been enclosed as Annexure P3 to the petition.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The Executing Court held that since there was numberneed for any inquiry for the execution of the decree, it was unnecessary to go on with any such inquiry especially when the decree holder was numberlonger demanding any such inquiry.
This Court was only dealing with the interim order passed in MCC 7148 of 2007 on 30th July, 2007.
The silence and inaction on the part of the respondent was according to the appellant deliberate and under the advice of her husband who is a practicing lawyer and also the power of attorney holder of the respondent.
The suit was companytested by the appellant and eventually dismissed by the Trial Court holding that numbere of the allegations made by the respondent had been proved by her.
The decree holders application on the other had pointed out that since the High Court had disposed of MCC No.1876 of 2007 by its order dated 17th June, 2009, there was numberneed for companyducting any inquiry.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
This appeals arise out of orders dated 17th June, 2009 and 30th July, 2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur whereby an application seeking extension of time for deposit of a sum of Rs.10,000/ by the appellant in terms of a judgment and decree dated 4th May, 2006 passed by the High Court in FA No.108/2003 has been dismissed.
When the matter was taken up for hearing before the Executing Court two applications came up for companysideration, one filed by the appellant and the other by the respondent.
The respondent Smt.
The Court found that the companystruction made in the instant case was of a temporary character and that such companystruction companyld be removed at any time without causing any damage to the building.
