HEERA TRADERS versus KAMLA JAIN

HEERA TRADERS versus KAMLA JAIN

Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (as substituted in 1983) does not, by mere compliance (deposit/payment) automatically stay or render inexecutable an eviction decree; payment under Section 13 does not reinstate tenant status once an eviction decree has been passed, the erstwhile tenant becomes an unauthorised occupant and may be required by an appellate court under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC to deposit a reasonable sum (including mesne profits or an amount not limited to the agreed rent) as condition for stay of execution.

Parties
Appellant: Heera Traders; Respondent: Kamla Jain
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Second Appeal (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Stay of Execution of Eviction Decrees, Mesne Profits, Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, Effect of Eviction Decree on Tenant Status
Tenancy Law Rent Control Civil Procedure Interpretation of Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 Stay of Execution of Eviction Decrees Mesne Profits Order XLI Rule 5 CPC Effect of Eviction Decree on Tenant Status

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heera Traders

Appellant

Kamla Jain

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Second Appeal (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 13 (as substituted in 1983) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 operates to stay execution of an eviction decree by virtue of deposits/payments made under it
  2. 2 Whether a person against whom an eviction decree has been passed remains a tenant for purposes of Section 13 and is thereby insulated from being treated as an unauthorised occupant during the pendency of appeal or other proceedings
  3. 3 Whether an appellate court can, under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, impose conditions including payment of mesne profits or a sum higher than contracted rent as condition for stay of eviction

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (as substituted in 1983) does not, by mere compliance (deposit/payment) automatically stay or render inexecutable an eviction decree; payment under Section 13 does not reinstate tenant status once an eviction decree has been passed, the erstwhile tenant becomes an unauthorised occupant and may be required by an appellate court under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC to deposit a reasonable sum (including mesne profits or an amount not limited to the agreed rent) as condition for stay of execution.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • Grant appellants five weeks to deposit the entire amount in terms of the impugned orders after adjusting amounts already deposited/paid on execution court orders; amounts to subsume sums paid/payable under Section 13 of the Act
  • Respondent permitted to withdraw rent at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month from the amount deposited