BALUBHAI PATEL Vs. MANOHAR RAO DUMRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") has been filed by the tenant/applicant challenging the propriety and legality of the proceeding of the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, "Authority") Raipur, who passed the order and evicted the tenant/applicant from the suit accommodation.

(2.) SMT. Chandrabhag Bai claiming herself to be landlord of the suit accommodation under Section 23-J of the Act, filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act, for recovery of possession of the suit accommodation for business of her major son and her unmarried daughters against the tenant/applicant. During pendency of the proceeding both the parties filed a compromise petition on 28-7-1992. On 27-8-1992 statement of tenant/applicant on compromise petition was recorded by the Authority who in his statement did not agree to condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the compromise petition. On 1-9-1992 the Authority, on the basis of submission made before it during argument to the effect that compromise has come into force, came to the opinion that no further action is called for and terminated the whole proceeding.

(3.) BOTH the parties are heard on merit as well as on I.A. No. 692/2006. Chandrabhag Bai, claiming herself to be the landlord under Section 23-J of the Act, filed the petition for recovery of the possession against the tenant/applicant under Section 23-A(b) of the Act. During pendency of the proceeding, Chandrabhag Bai-landlord, the applicant/tenant filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 27-8-1992 tenant/applicant was examined by the Authority to ascertain the legality and correctness of the compromise. Tenant/applicant in his statement did not accept the condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the compromise. The authority did not record the compromise and pass any order in accordance with the compromise petition or for eviction of tenant/applicant from the suit accommodation, but only dropped the case mentioning that no further action is required as during argument it has been stated that compromise has come in force.