| Headnote |
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13 – When tenant can get benefit of protection against eviction– Interpretation of – Held: Even though s.13 does refer to the erstwhile tenant as a tenant and it obliges him to deposit throughout the proceedings, the amounts, which can be treated as the rent being paid, which would be contractual rent or even the rent fixed as the standard rent, this does not, by itself, alter the effect of the Decree/ Order of eviction passed by the Court, by which, he stood deprived of the status of a tenant – Filing of an appeal or other proceeding by the tenant, does not make the decree inexecutable – Payment of the amounts u/s.13(1) or s.13(2), does not, by itself, bring about the stay of the decree or order of eviction – By making the payments, contemplated in s.13(1) or s.13(2), the erstwhile tenant, who stood deprived of the status of a tenant, does not regain the said status by mere reason of the fact that in s.13, he is referred to as the tenant – The position of the erstwhile tenant under the Act, going by the definition in s.2(i) of the Act, will continue to hold the field, even after an appeal or other proceeding is maintained by him – Therefore, s.13 despite the unique provision contained therein, does not affect the position at law, which stands declared in Atma Ram case –With the Decree of Eviction being passed, the erstwhile statutory tenant becomes an unauthorised occupant – The fact that the law permits the defendant to file an appeal or to take other proceedings, will not clothe him with rights as a tenant – The fact that the finality of the Decree of Eviction is attained at a later stage, will not be sufficient to extricate him from his position as an unauthorised occupant in the interregnum –During such interregnum, the erstwhile tenant, being in the position of an unauthorised occupant, becomes liable to pay mesne profits – Even after the substitution of s.13, it would be open to the Appellate Court to impose the condition that appellant seeking to contest the Decree of Eviction, shall deposit a reasonable sum, which is not to be limited to the agreed rent– Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5. Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13 (prior to its substitution in the year 1983) – Impact of – Discussed. Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – s.13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5 – Plea of the appellantstenants that s.13 of the Act, being a special law, the power under Or. XLI r.5, cannot be exercised to direct deposit or payment of mesne profits – Held: Not acceptable – Compliance with s.13 by the appellants, does no amount to a stay of the Decree for Eviction – The power of the Appellate Court to impose conditions for staying the Decree, cannot be confined by the dictate in s.13 of the Act, to the appellants/tenants, to deposit the agreed rent, particularly, having regard to the time consumed in litigation and, more importantly, the impact of the Decree of Eviction, depriving the appellant of his status as a tenant. Interpretation of Statutes – Heading of a section – Held: The heading of a section cannot control the construction of the provision itself – The provision, as it unfolds under the heading, must be given the full meaning according to the principles of interpretation, which the court is persuaded to apply – The only area where the heading may be useful is when the provision is shrouded in ambiguity – The heading may shed some light, however, faint it may be. |
