M/S. FASHION WORLD versus BANSHIDHAR MULTI BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 17-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
M/S. FASHION WORLD
v.
BANSHIDHAR MULTI BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7325 of 2022)
OCTOBER 17, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13(6) – Landlord
filed application u/s.13(6) to strike off the defence of the appellant-
tenant, allowed by Trial Court – Order confirmed by High Court –
On appeal, held: Pursuant to order passed by Supreme Court, the
appellant has deposited the balance amount of GST – As the defence
was struck off on non-deposit/payment of the balance amount of
GST, which is now deposited, the order passed by the High Court
and Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant are set
aside – Appellant permitted to defend the eviction suit/suit – Further,
to strike the balance, appellant to pay the rent as directed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7325
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 06.08.2018 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Misc. Petition No. 1509
of 2018.
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli
Prasad, Amritesh Raj, Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Ashish Madaan, Yash
Singh, Aman Singh Bhadoria, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Ms. S. Priyadarshinee, Ankit Ambasta, Amit
Kumar Srivastava, Vishal Prasad, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in
Misc. Petition No. 1509 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed
the said miscellaneous petition preferred by the appellant and has
confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court striking off the
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 993
993
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
defence of the appellant – original defendant allowing the application
submitted by the original plaintiff – landlord submitted under Section
13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act, 1961”), the tenant – original defendant has preferred the
present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as per the Lease
Agreement, the tenant is liable to pay the rent @ Rs.58,650/- per month
for the area admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. super-built-up area. Under the Lease
Agreement, over and above the above amount, the tenant is also liable
to pay the maintenance charges as well as the service tax. On coming
into force of the GST, the tenant is liable to pay the GST instead of
service tax. The tenant, though paid the rent and the other maintenance
charges, however, did not deposit/pay the GST. Therefore, the original
plaintiff – landlord filed an application before the learned Trial Court
under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 and prayed to strike off the defence
of the appellant - defendant - tenant. The learned Tribunal allowed the
said application and struck off the defence of the appellant – defendant
– tenant. The order passed by the Trial Court striking off the defence
was the subject matter before the High Court. By the impugned judgment
and order, the High Court has dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed
by the appellant, which is the subject matter of present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Rukhmini Bobde,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while issuing the
notice, this Court passed the following order on 31.08.2018:-
“Application seeking exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.
Issue notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is ready to
deposit the balance amount of GST which comes to Rs. 5,80,000/
- approximately. The petitioner will deposit the said sum before
the Trial Court within a period of one week from today.
In the meantime, further proceedings of the suit shall remain
stayed.”
5. It is reported that pursuant to the order passed by this Court
dated 31.08.2018, the appellant has deposited the balance amount of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
GST. In that view of the matter and considering the fact that the defence
was struck off on non-deposit/payment of the balance amount of GST,
which is now deposited, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by
the High Court as well as the learned Trial Court striking off the defence
of the appellant.
6. However, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent has
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.