PRADEEP BALVANDERE Vs. KUNDU BAI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth "the Act") has been filed by the tenant/applicant challenging the propriety, illegality and correctness of the impugned order dated 1-3-2006 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (henceforth "the Authority") in Case No. 9-90(8) 2004-05, whereby order of eviction has been passed in favour of the landlord/respondent.

(2.) Fact material for disposal of this revision as unfolded before the Authority is that the respondent claiming herself to be the landlord in accordance with Section 23J of the Act, filed an application under Section 23A of the Act for recovery of possession of the suit accommodation, averring that the suit accommodation is required bonafide for starting business of her major son Kamlesh Kumar and she has no other suitable alternative accommodation available in the city. Applicant/tenant was served with notice in accordance Section 23-C of the Act. Admittedly, notice was served on the tenant/applicant, but he did not file any application for grant of leave to contest the application filed by the landlord/respondent for recovery of the possession of the suit accommodation. His defence was struck off by the Authority vide order dated 6-2-2006. Thereafter statement of Kamlesh Kumar was recorded by the Authority and the impugned order of eviction against the applicant has been passed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the Authority did not pass any order of eviction under Section 23C of the Act, therefore, the impugned order passed on the basis of evidence of attorney Kamlesh Kumar in absence of oral statement of landlord Smt. Kundubai is illegal. He further contended that the attorney on behalf of the landlord is not competent to prove the case of landlord and in absence of statement of Kundubai, adverse inference should have been drawn against her. In order to support his contention, he relied on judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and Anr. reported in : [1999]1SCR1168 , and judgment rendered in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Limited and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SCW 7064. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the landlord/ respondent contended that the Authority has not only passed the order on evidence adduced by landlord, but also took shelter of the provisions as envisaged under Sections 23-C and 23-D (3) of the Act.