SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KIRAN PATHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 08.11.2010, passed in Rent Control Case No.46-A/90(7)/2006, by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, by which the application submitted by the petitioner for recalling the order of allotment of house in question to the respondent, was rejected. It is held by the Rent Controlling Authority that the provisions of Section 42 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) are not attracted and, therefore, such application is rejected.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the petitioner is said to be the absolute owner of property in dispute, named as 'Mishrilal Bhawan' House No.1161/1, Sadar Bazar, Cantt., Jabalpur. The respondent is a medical practitioner and is not holding any post in the Government services either in the State or in the Central Government. The said house in dispute was allotted to the respondent vide order dated 1.11.1993. She started residing in the house and subsequently started a clinic/nursing home. In the year 2006, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent for vacating2 the said house of which a reply was given by the respondent contending that the house was not allotted to her husband Brigadier Pathania, but the same was allotted to the respodent and, therefore, it was not required to be vacated. It is the averment made by the petitioner that after coming into know about such a fact, an application was filed under Section 42 of the Act for cancellation of the allotment of the house in favour of the respondent and declaring the said house exempted from the application of the Chapter of Control on the Accommodation contained in the Act, but such application has been rejected, therefore, this revision is required to be filed. It is contended that the Rent Controlling Authority failed to understand the provisions of Section 39(2) read with Section 40 of the Act and has failed to exercise the power conferred on him under Section 42 of the Act, therefore, such an order is bad in law.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that there was no illegality in allotting the house to the respondent, committed by the Rent Controlling Authority as the house could be allotted to the respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 39(1) of the Act. Since it was well known to the Rent Controlling Authority that the respondent was not in the Government service, but since such a provision is available for making allotment of an accommodation to the other than serving person, such an allotment was rightly made. It is contended that such an allotment was with the consent of the petitioner who was aware of the fact that the respondent was not in the employment, the petitioner has accepted the allotment in favour of the respondent wilfully, has never raised any objection for all these 13 years and, therefore, such a claim made by the petitioner for cancellation of allotment was not maintainable. This has rightly been held by the Rent Controlling Authority that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are not attracted in such a case and, therefore, the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. It is3 contended that in view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the revision is liable to be dismissed.