Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the applicant-landlord, Ranjitsingh Suryawanshi, against the judgment and order dated 13th April 2017 passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in M.J.C. No. 106 of 2016. The landlord had filed a suit for eviction (Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 2016) against the tenant, Narayan Deshmukh, which was decreed ex parte. The tenant then filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex parte decree. In those proceedings, the landlord filed an application (Exh. 8) seeking dismissal of the tenant's application on the ground that it was filed without compliance of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which mandates deposit of rent due as a condition precedent. The trial court rejected the landlord's application, leading to the present revision. The High Court considered the mandatory nature of Section 17(1) and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Kedarnath v. Mohan Lal Kesarwari (2002) 2 SCC 16, which held that the provision is mandatory and non-compliance renders the application not maintainable. The court allowed the revision, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the dismissal of the tenant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for non-compliance of Section 17(1) of the Act.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Small Cause Courts - Section 17(1) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Mandatory Deposit - The provision requiring deposit of rent as a condition precedent for entertaining an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is mandatory. The court held that non-compliance of Section 17(1) renders the application liable to be rejected. The trial court erred in rejecting the landlord's application for dismissal of the tenant's proceedings. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application filed by the tenant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree is maintainable without compliance of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which requires deposit of rent due.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 13th April 2017 passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur, is set aside. The application (Exh. 8) filed by the applicant is allowed, and the proceedings initiated by the non-applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in M.J.C. No. 106 of 2016 are dismissed for non-compliance of Section 17(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
Law Points
- Section 17(1) of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act
- 1887 is mandatory
- deposit of rent is a condition precedent for entertaining application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in suits governed by the Act
