M/S. FASHION WORLD versus BANSHIDHAR MULTI BUILDERS PVT. LTD. on 17 October 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore inMisc. Petition No. 1509 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissedthe said miscellaneous petition preferred by the appellant and hasconfirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court striking off the

993

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adefence of the appellant – original defendant allowing the applicationsubmitted by the original plaintiff – landlord submitted under Section13(6) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredto as the “Act, 1961”), the tenant – original defendant has preferred thepresent appeal.

B2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as per the LeaseAgreement, the tenant is liable to pay the rent @ Rs.58,650/- per monthfor the area admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. super-built-up area. Under the LeaseAgreement, over and above the above amount, the tenant is also liableto pay the maintenance charges as well as the service tax. On cominginto force of the GST, the tenant is liable to pay the GST instead ofCservice tax. The tenant, though paid the rent and the other maintenancecharges, however, did not deposit/pay the GST. Therefore, the originalplaintiff – landlord filed an application before the learned Trial Courtunder Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961 and prayed to strike off the defenceof the appellant - defendant - tenant. The learned Tribunal allowed theDsaid application and struck off the defence of the appellant – defendant – tenant. The order passed by the Trial Court striking off the defencewas the subject matter before the High Court. By the impugned judgmentand order, the High Court has dismissed the miscellaneous petition filedby the appellant, which is the subject matter of present appeal.

E3. We have heard Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learnedcounsel 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 thenotice, this Court passed the following order on 31.08.2018:- F“Application seeking exemption from filing O.T. is allowed.Issue notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is ready todeposit the balance amount of GST which comes to Rs. 5,80,000/- approximately. The petitioner will deposit the said sum beforeGthe Trial Court within a period of one week from today.

In the meantime, further proceedings of the suit shall remainstayed.”

5. It is reported that pursuant to the order passed by this CourtHdated 31.08.2018, the appellant has deposited the balance amount of

GST. In that view of the matter and considering the fact that the defencewas 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 bythe High Court as well as the learned Trial Court striking off the defenceof the appellant.

A

6. However, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent has requested to keep the question of law namely,whether the rent includes the liability to pay the tax or not and whetheron non-deposit/non-payment of the tax liability, the defence of the tenantcan be struck off under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961?

B

6.1 Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondent has further prayed to consider the enhancement of therent in case this Hon’ble Court set aside the orders passed by the learnedTrial Court as well as the High Court striking off the defence of theappellant. It is submitted that even as per the Lease Agreement and asadmitted by the tenant in the written statement, there shall be periodicalincrease of the rent @ 15% every three years. It is submitted thattherefore the tenant may be directed to pay the rent/enhanced rent bygiving periodical rise by 15%. It is submitted that though at present theproperty in question may fetch the rent @ Rs. 4,00,000/- even by giving15% periodical rise every three years, the rent would come as under:- C

D

E

“i.Rent till the year September, 2011 : Rs. 58,650/-

ii.Rent enhanced in October, 2011 : Rs. 76,245/-

iii.Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2017 willbe Rs. 87,681/-

iv.Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2020 willFbe Rs. 1,00,833/8-

v.Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2023 willbe Rs. 1,15,958/-”

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - landlordis justified in making the above request.

G

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of thelearned Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant is quashedand set aside and the appellant is permitted to defend the eviction suit/

H

Asuit, which may be considered in accordance with law and on its ownmerits. However, at the same time to strike the balance, we direct theappellant – tenant to pay the rent @ Rs. 58,650/- till September, 2011; @Rs. 76,245/- for the period between October, 2011 to September, 2014;@ Rs. 87,681/- for the period between October 2014 to September,2017; @ Rs. 1,00,833/- for the period between October, 2017 toBSeptember, 2020; @ Rs. 1,15,958/- for the period between October,2020 to September, 2023 and to continue to pay the rent @ Rs. 1,15,958/- for the period October, 2023 onwards till the final disposal of the suit tobe paid within six weeks from today. The learned High Court is herebydirected to finally decide and dispose of the suit expeditiously and withinCa period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed/disposed of in terms of theabove. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shallbe no order as to costs.

DDivya Pandey(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H