SYED MEHMOOD Vs. KHERUNNISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission. The applicant has faced with an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in application u/s 23 -E of the Accommodation Control Act. It appears that he was proceeded ex parte on 25.8.87. He challenged the said order in this Court by filing Civil Revision No. 341/88. The said revision was dismissed summarily by order dated 13.12.89 holding that "in the opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to find any fault with the learned Rent Controlling Authority having proceeded ex parte against the applicant on 25.8.87". While dismissing the said application, the Court further observed that "We would like to observe that the tenant -applicant would not be precluded from re - agitating his grievance in a revision against the final order of eviction, if any, passed against him". Encouraged by the aforesaid observations, the applicant has preferred this revision challenging the legality and validity of the order of the learned Authority. Once the ex parte order is held to be justified and legally sustained, there would really be no justification for giving any relief to the applicant. Applicant has not adduced any evidence to show that the non -applicants did not have any need of the house or that they had any suitable accommodation of their own to satisfy their need. The non -applicants would be required to establish their case to the effect that the applicant was proceeded ex parte or represented in the Court. This obligation had been discharged by examining four witnesses who have established every ingredient of the provision. In this view of the matter the conclusion of the learned Authority that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the non -applicants for their residence cannot be said to be illegal or unjust. There is no scope for interference with the impugned order. The revision fails and is dismissed summarily.