@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.@mdashThe revision is against the order passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Raipur, arising out of the order dated 30-9-2000.
2. The applicants filed a suit for eviction against the respondent under Sections 12(1)(b) and 12(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant filed an application on 18-9-2000 under Order 39 Rule 1 & Order 39 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, on the ground that the landlord has demolished the portion as well as the wall in his possession which causes disturbance to the privacy and has made the accommodation not habitable. The landlord denied and filed reply opposing applicants. The Trial Court dismissed the application. An appeal was preferred by the tenant against the order passed by the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court by impugned order has allowed the appeal and after considering the material available on record in great detail, has issued directions contained in para 9 of the order. The lower Appellate Court directed landlord to rebuild and construct demolished area within one month and if he fails to do so, the tenant has been given liberty to construct and rebuild the same at the expenses of the landlord, i.e., he has to be reimbursed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the order is without jurisdiction as the remedy u/s 37 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is available to the tenant and the Court was not justified in passing the order. It is further contended that wall of its own has fallen down.
4. Section 37 o the M.P. Accommodation Control Act reads as under :
"37. Landlord''s duty to keep accommodation in good repair--(1) Every landlord shall be bound to keep the accommodation in good and tenantable repairs.
(2) If the landlord neglects or fails to make, within a reasonable time after notice in writing, any repairs which he is bound to make under Sub-section (1), the tenant may make the same himself and deduct the expenses of such repairs from the rent or otherwise recover them from the landlord :
Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed one-twelfth of the rent payable by the tenant for that year.
(3) Where any repairs without which the accommodation is not habitable or usable except with undue inconvenience are to be made and the landlord neglects or fails to make them after notice in writing, the tenant may apply to the Rent Controlling Authority for permission to make such repairs himself and, may submit to the Rent Controlling Authority an estimate of the cost of such repairs, and, thereupon, the Rent Controlling Authority may, after giving the landlord an opportunity of being heard and after considering such estimate of the cost and making such inquiries as it may consider necessary, by an order in writing, permit the tenant to make such repairs at such cost as may be specified in the order and it shall thereafter be lawful for the tenant to make such repairs himself and to deduct the cost thereof, which shall in no case exceed the amount so specified, from the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord :
Provided that the amount so deducted or recoverable in any year shall not exceed one-half of the rent payable by the tenant for that year :
Provided further that if any repairs not covered by the said amount are necessary in the opinion of the Rent Controlling Authority and the tenant agrees to bear the excess cost himself, the Rent Controlling Authority may permit the tenant to make such repairs."
So far as jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, where a suit is pending, Order 39 Rule 7 is pertinent and quoted below :
"R. 7. Detention, preservation, inspection etc. of subject-matter of suit--
(1) The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit, and on such terms as it thinks fit--
(a) make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject-matter of such suit, or as to which any question may arise therein :
(b) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorize any person to enter upon or into any land or building in the possession of any other party to such suit; and
(c) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorize any samples to be taken or any observation to be made or experiment to be tried which may seem necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence."
5. Since the suit was pending for eviction, it is necessary to preserve the status as it is and it is the duty of both the sides. Any party to a suit is entitled to make application for temporary injunction and as such the tenant was within his rights in making the application.
6. The matter has been considered in great detail in case of Shankarlal v. State of M.P. (1978 JLJ 51) by Hon''ble Shri G.P. Singh, J. (as he then was). Perusal of Shankarlal v. State of M.P. shows that the principle enunciated in Tagore Law Lectures, 1897, 1964 Edition was followed in the said case and the Court significantly quoted the following observations from the Tagore Law Lectures (supra):
"An applicant is not required to make out a clear legal title, but to satisfy the Court that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the legal right which he sets up, and that there are substantial grounds for doubting the existence of the alleged legal right, the exercise of which he seeks to prevent" (page No. 104)"
"The Court will, in many cases, interfere to preserve property in status quo during the pendency of a suit in which the rights to it are to be decided, and that, without expressing and often without having the means of forming any opinion as to such rights. It is true the Court will not interfere if it makes that there is no real question between the parties, but if it sees that there is a substantial question can be regularly disposed of ; and in order to support an injunction for such purpose it is not necessary for the Court to decide upon the merits in favour of the plaintiff. If the plaint states a substantial question between the parties the title to the injunction may be good, although the title to the relief prayed may ultimately fail."
7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, as has been found by the lower Appellate Court, when a suit is pending, the demolition of wall is such an act which comes within the purview of Order 39 Rule 7 and as such in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the duty of the Court to preserve the property. The tenant cannot be deprived of the accommodation by demolition or otherwise so as to make it not habitable.
8. Parties have to maintain rule of law and have to preserve the status as it is. They cannot take the law in their own hands, otherwise, there will be no sanctity for law and each one may do some act prejudicial to each other. So far as this revision is concerned, the order was passed by the lower Appellate Court on 9-2-2001 and the certified copy was supplied on 23-2-2001 and this revision was filed after expiry of more than one month.
9. Under the facts and circumstances of the case as aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in the order of the Trial Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
10. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed.
