RAGHUVEER CHARAN SHARMA Vs. ADITYA NARAYAN KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision impugns a composite order dated 22-3-2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Vidisha in Case No. 4/a-90/98-99, rejecting the application of the tenant/applicant (herein) for leave to defend under Section 23-C of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and directing eviction of the tenant (applicant herein) thereunder. The reasons leading to rejection of the application as noted in the impugned order are that the application was filed after inordinate delay of 8 months on 9-9-1997; that it did not disclose sufficient ground to defend and that the earlier application for leave to defend filed on 6-1-1997 was not only time barred but was also not supported by an affidavit as per Section 23-C of the Act. Section 23-C of the Act, being a relevant provision, on reproduction reads as under:-

(2.) SHRI Kaushik, learned Counsel amongst others submits that as per ratio of two decisions of this Court reported as : (1) Gopal Shankar Sahai v. Thakur Sahab Singh (1986 MPLJ 163 = 1985 MPRCJ 260) and (2) Satish Chandra v. Smt. Shantidevi (1987 MPRCJ SN 57); filing of affidavit in support of application under Section 23-C of the Act is not necessary. That apart, Shri Kaushik also places reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court reported as : Liaq Ahmed and Ors. v. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman (AIR 2000 SC 2470 ).

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondents, counters the aforesaid submissions on the grounds of inordinate delay of eight months in filing affidavit in support of the aforesaid application; defiant attitude of the applicant in not paying the cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the landlord/non-applicant (herein) in violation of directions of this Court in the order dated 30-3-1999 dismissing his Civil Revision No. 1224/1997; and deliberate default in payment of monthly rent of Rs. 55/- for 67 months now said to have been deposited in one go.