SAYEDA AKHTAR versus ABDUL AHAD

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 612 · Decided: 18-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SA VEDA AKHTAR 
v. 
ABDULAHAD 
JULY 18, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
MP. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: 
Ss. l 2 and 13-(;ourt 's power to extend time for depositing arrears of 
C rent-Suit for eviction for default in payment of rent and for nuisance-Decreed 
by trial court and decree affirmed by appellate court-High Court dismissed 
the suit holding that default committed by tenant deserved condonation and 
courts below should have given him further time to deposit arrears of rent-
Held, although the court has the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing 
D the rent both for the period during which the tenant had defaulted as well as 
the period subsequent thereto but therefor an application is to be made-The 
provision requiring an application to be made is indisputably necessary for 
the purpose of showing sufficient cause as lo why such deposit could not be 
made within the time granted by the court-The court does not extend time or 
condone the delay on mere sympathy-It will exercise its discretion judiciously 
E and on a finding of existence of sufficient cause-The court could not have 
entertained an application made on 5.2. 1990 for condonation of delay in 
paymem of rent for the month of November, l 985 and the months of May and 
June, 1988-Besides, the landlord sought for a decree of eviction also on 
ground of commission of nuisance by the tenant, and though a specific issue 
F was not formed by the trial court in this regard, record clearly demonstrates 
that parties were aware of ii and submissions were made thereon-The appellate 
court formulated a specific question regarding nuisance and held that evidence 
on record proved that tenant had created nuisance-High Court did not advert 
to this question at all-High Court in second appeal could not have without 
sufficient and just reason interfered with the concurrent findings of fact 
G recorded by the courts below-Judgment of High Court set aside and decree 
of trial court restored-Practice and Procedure-Non-framing of issue-
Ef!ect of 
Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sitra Ram Agarwal, 120031 2 SeC 577 and 
Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, 1198012 sec 151, relied on. 
H 
612 
SA YEDA AKHTAR v. ABDUL AHAD 
613 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5010 of2003. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in S.A. No. 123 of 1990. 
Anis Ahmed Khan for the Appellant. 
B.S. Banthia for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Heard counsel for the parties. 
With the consent of the parties, we dispose of this appeal finally at this 
stage. 
B 
c 
The appellant herein is the landlord of premises bearing No. 505, Ward D 
No.15 Arif Nagar, Bhopal whereas the respondent herein is the tenant. The 
landlord filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent 
as well as nuisance. Admittedly, the tenant neither deposited the rent within 
the stipulated period nor any application was moved for extension of time to 
deposit the same. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed 
an order of eviction. The first appellate Court affirmed trial Court's decree. E 
However, the High Court allowed the second appeal an reverses the decree. 
Consequently, the suit for eviction stood dismissed. The High Court was of 
the view that default committed by the tenant deserved condonation and the 
Court below ought to have given further time to deposit the arrears of rent. 
It is against the said judgment and order that the appellant-landlord is in F 
appeal before us. 
Section 13 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 reads as 
under: 
"13.(1) On a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on 
any of the grounds referred to in Section I 2, the tenant shall, within G 
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 Court to pay to the landlord an amount 
calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid, for the period for 
which the tenant may have made default including the period H 
614 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in 
which the deposit or payment is made 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. 
X« 
xxxxxx 
(6) If a tena

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.