@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Rohit Arya, J.—This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the tenant is directed against the order dated 15/9/2015 passed by the trial Court calling upon the petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent of the suit shop at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per month as an interim rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though in the plaint, allegations were made that the suit shop was rented out on monthly rent of Rs. 5,500/-; however, same has been denied in written statement by stating that rent was only Rs. 2,500/- per month.
2. Respondent/landlord submitted an application under Section 13 (2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for fixing the standard rent with the assertion that rent being Rs. 5,500/- per month, same be fixed as standard rent and annexed a copy of receipt No. 40 in support thereto.
3. Contents of aforesaid application was denied by petitioner. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no whisper about the aforesaid receipt in the plaint or even in the notice seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit shop. That apart, the trial Court while justifying fixing of standard rent at Rs. 5,500/- per month has further relied on two more receipts viz. receipts No. 36 and 38 which were neither part of pleading nor at any point of time were served upon the petitioner/tenant. Under such circumstances, petitioner/tenant contended that those receipts were forged and fabricated and could not have been relied upon. However, trial Court rejected the aforesaid contention on the premise that whether the receipts are forged or fabricated is a question of fact which can be addressed only after parties lead evidence. The trial Court relying upon those receipts for the purpose of fixation of standard called upon the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid rent.
4. Perused the order impugned. There is no dispute between the parties that the alleged receipts No. 36 and 38 were never served upon the petitioner/tenant during course of proceedings in the trial Court. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court was not justified having relied upon the aforesaid receipts while fixing the standard rent. Hence, the impugned order is set aside with direction to trial Court to reconsider the application under Section 13 (2) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Parties are at liberty to place on record documents in support of their contentions and thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. Further on demand, the petitioner may be supplied copy of receipt Nos. 36 and 38.
5. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
