RAM SINGH Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR CHOUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16.5.2007, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, on an application filed by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner, under the provisions of Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). It is contended that the respondent has filed the application before the Rent Controlling Authrity, claiming himself to be a physically disabled person, entitled to invoke the special benefits of the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act, for the purposes of seeking eviction of his tenant, whereas the respondent is not a specified landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the Act and, therefore, no such eviction order could have been passed against the petitioner. It is contended that the respondent has filed as many as 10 to 15 applications for eviction of his tenants, claiming to be the specified landlord, under the special provision. In all such cases, the eviction orders were passed and this Court while considering the revision in such cases has categorically held that the respondent was not a specified landlord and, therefore, was not entitled to approach the Rent Controlling Authority for granting a relief of eviction against the petitioner and, therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed as has been done in other cases.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for respondent has, vehemently, opposed such a contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has contended that since ex-parte proceedings were done against the petitioner by the Rent Controlling Authority, as per the provisions of Section 23-C of the Act, such a plea cannot be raised in such a revision. It is contended that since the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on account of his non-appearance and not filing a written statement before the Rent Controlling Authority, therefore, his case is different than that of the other tenants who have contested the matter and in their cases the evidence was adduced. Therefore, it is contended that such findings given in other revisions by this Court would not help the petitioner herein and this revision is not to be allowed in the same manner. Thus, it is contended that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no reason to record a different opinion than what was recorded by this Court in the case of Dilip Baghela Vs. Virendra Kumar Choubey (Civil Revision No.503/2010, decided on 16.8.2011). A copy of the order passed by this Court in the said case has been placed on record. The objection raised in the said revision petition was that Virendra Kumar Choubey, the respondent herein, was not a specified landlord as such a fact was neither pleaded nor proved before the Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority, under the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act. Such aspect was scrutinised by this Court and this has been categorically held that the said landlord has utterly failed to prove that he was a specified landlord as defined in Section 23-J of the Act and, therefore, the application made by him under the special provision before the Rent Controlling Authority was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent could not point out that such a finding recorded by this Court has already been set aside or even challenge before any higher forum.