H R AGRAWAL Vs. K B UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 4-12-99, passed by RCA, Bhopal in M. J. C. No. 5/99.

(2.) APPLICANT/landlord, H. R. Agrawal filed application under Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for convenience) before the RCA, Bhopal. It was registered as Case No. 44/rca, Bhopal/99. Tenant/non-applicant K. B. Upadhyay resisted the application stating inter alia that the suit premises since had been let out after the retirement of the landlord/applicant from the Government service, application under Section 23-A of the Act is not maintainable. Accepting the contention, the RCA vide order dated 20-8-99 rejected the application on the sole ground that the landlord/applicant retired in the year 1986 and the suit premise has been let out to the tenant/non-applicant in the year 1991. After some time, tenant/non-applicant filed application under Section 23-I of the Act seeking an order to saddle with a heavy compensatory cost against the landlord/applicant as he made a false or frivolous application under Section 23-A of the Act. An exparte order dated 4-12-99 was passed by RCA, directing the landlord/applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,790/- to the tenant/non-applicant within the period of 7 days. Being aggrieved, landlord/applicant has preferred this revision.

(3.) ANNEXURE A is the order dated 20-8-99 rejecting the application under Section 23-A of the Act on the ground that landlord/applicant since retired in the year 1986 from the Government service, had let out the suit premises subsequently to tenant/non-applicant in the year 1991. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. In this order it is clear that no evidence was adduced by either party and an objection as to the maintainability the aforesaid order was passed directing the parties to bear their costs. The tenant/non-applicant on 30-9-99 filed application under Section 23-I of the Act seeking indulgence of the Tribunal requesting to award heavy compensatory cost to him. It seems that in M. J. C. No. 5/99 a show-cause notice was issued to landlord/applicant and on the basis of report of refusal he had been proceeded exparte. Notices in original with duplicate copy bearing signature of RCA are enclosed in the M. J. C. No. 5/99. On the back of the duplicate copy, report dated 13-10-99 is recorded to the effect that landlord/applicant H. R. Agrawal refused to accept the notice. On the basis of this report the landlord/applicant had been proceeded exparte. The report is incomplete so far as the ingredients of service are required under Order 5 Rule 17, CPC where the defendant refused to accept the service, the Serving Officer was required to affix a copy of summons/notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business etc. Therefore, it is, evident that on alleged refusal the Surving Officer had not affixed copy of the summons/notice on the outer door of the residential house of landlord/applicant. The Tribunal has wrongly proceeded exparte on the basis of service aforesaid.