DAYARAM Vs. RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing by certiorari -

(2.) THE disputed accommodation situate in Raipur city, bearing Nos. 572 and 573, is owned by toe respondent 2. In the year 1949, it was allotted to Shewandas Dayaram. The petitioners alleged that the accommodation was allotted to the firm Shewandas Dayaram and was thereafter used by that firm for carrying on its business. After that business was discontinued, Dayaram (petitioner 1), this wife's brother Bhagwandas (petitioner 2) and his nephew Govindram (petitioner 3) have been residing therein and carrying on their business in the name of Bhagwandas Gagumal. Since the landlord (respondent 2) realised that he could not evict the petitioners, he induced the House Allotment Patwari to make a report dated 25 July 1962 to the effect that Dayaram (petitioner 1) had vacated the accommodation and that the respondents 2 and 3 had unauthorisedly taken possession thereof. Thereupon the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority allotted the accommodation to a Government servant (respondent 3) and took action evidenced by the impugned notices and the order dated 22 August 1962 against the petitioners 2 and 3.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that this petition should be partly allowed. We do not wish to say anything about most of the facts which are disputed. We must, however, notice that, even though it was specifically brought to the attention of the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority that Dayaram continued to reside and carry on business in the accommodation and he had allowed his relations to reside with him in that accommodation no opportunity was given to Dayaram to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in the matter. It will be strange if a tenant claiming to be in possession of an accommodation could be dispossessed by use of force without being given an opportunity to show that he is entitled to remain in possession and is not liable to be dispossessed.