M/S Fashion World vs Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7325 OF 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 23808 OF 2018)

M/s. Fashion World …Appellant(s)

Versus

Banshidhar Multi Builders Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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

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.

Signature Not Verified

2. Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI At the outset, it is required to be noted that as per the Lease Date: 2022.10.17 17:54:50 IST Reason:

Agreement, the tenant is liable to pay the rent @ Rs.58,650/- per month

1 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:-

2

“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 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 requested to keep the question of law

namely, whether the rent includes the liability to pay the tax or not and

whether on non-deposit/non-payment of the tax liability, the defence of

the tenant can be struck off under Section 13(6) of the Act, 1961?

6.1 Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent has further prayed to consider the enhancement of the rent

3 in case this Hon’ble Court set aside the orders passed by the learned

Trial Court as well as the High Court striking off the defence of the

appellant. It is submitted that even as per the Lease Agreement and as

admitted by the tenant in the written statement, there shall be periodical

increase of the rent @ 15% every three years. It is submitted that

therefore the tenant may be directed to pay the rent/enhanced rent by

giving periodical rise by 15%. It is submitted that though at present the

property in question may fetch the rent @ Rs. 4,00,000/- even by giving

15% periodical rise every three years, the rent would come as under:-

“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 will be Rs. 87,681/-

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

v. Enhanced rent at the rate of 15% till September, 2023 will be Rs. 1,15,958/-“

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - landlord

is justified in making the above request.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the

learned Trial Court striking off the defence of the appellant is quashed

4 and set aside and the appellant is permitted to defend the eviction

suit/suit, which may be considered in accordance with law and on its

own merits. However, at the same time to strike the balance, we direct

the appellant – 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 to September, 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 to be paid within six weeks from today. The learned High Court

is hereby directed to finally decide and dispose of the suit expeditiously

and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present

order.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed / disposed of in terms of the

above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. OCTOBER 17, 2022. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

5