VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. KAMLESH KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Application the Applicant challenges the order dated 13.11.96 passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay in case no.3 of 1990. By that order passed on an Application filed under section 13A(1) of the Bornbay Rent Act, 1947, the Competent Authority directed the present petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. one room, kitchen and one toilet, bath room more specifically shown in the map in red colour, attached with the main application, on the ground floor of the bunglow no.E-3, Rajkunj Co-op, Housing Society Ltd., near R.C.F. Colony, Chembur, Mumbai -74, to the respondent within thirty days of the order. The respondent filed an Application under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rent Act, claiming that he is owner of the suit bunglow. According to him he is working as Scientific Officer/Engineer Grade 'SF' Central Workshops at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and he is holding scientific post. He claimed that he bonafide requires the suit premises for his own occupation. Along with his application he also submitted a certificate dated 28/30th March, 1990 as required by the provisions of sub-section 1 of Section 13A of the Bombay Rent Act for claiming possession of the suit premises.

(2.) THE petitioner-tenant on being served with notice, appeared and filed his written statement, denying the claim made by the respondent. The parties thereafter led evidence and the Competent Authority allowed the Application by the order impugned in this petition.

(3.) NEXT contention that is urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel is that the statement made in the certificate dated 28/30th March, 1990 that the respondent does not possess any other residence in Bombay in his name, is not correct. lt is to be seen that by virtue of the provisions contained in subsection 2 or Section 13A of the Bombay Rent Act, a certificate granted under sub-section 1 thereof is a conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out to me anything to show that the Competent Authority constituted under the Bombay Rent Act is competent to go beyond the certificate issued in respect of the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 13A(1) of the Act. Thus in view of the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 13A(1) of the Act, the certificate issued by the Competent Authority is binding and conclusive on the Court established under the Bombay Rent Act and the Court could not have gone beyond the certificate issued by the Competent Authority under the Act. It is clearly stated in the certificate that the respondent does not possess any other residence in Bombay.