ISRAR PASHA Vs. MAQBOOL AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 23.10.2012 passed in Case No. 07/RCA/2010 rejecting the application submitted by the applicant for taking certain documents on record on the ground that such documents were necessary for consideration of the defence taken by the applicant. Yet another application was made for impleadment of the Chief Executive Officer of Madhya Pradesh Wakf Board as a party but the said application was also rejected. It is contended that since there was a dispute pending before the Chief Executive Officer against the applicant as also respondent No. 1, wherein both of them were treated to be encroachers on the land on which the demise premise is constructed, therefore, such authority was necessary party to be impleaded in the proceeding. It is contended that such aspects have not been considered by the R.C.A. and the applications submitted by the applicant have been rejected. Thus, it is contended that the order passed by the R.C.A. is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Per contra it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board was not a necessary party to be impleaded in the proceeding as an eviction application was filed by the respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). It is contended that since the applicant was required to obtain leave to defend under the provisions of Section 23C of the Act aforesaid and since such an application was not made, the applicant had no right to make any such application. Such applications have rightly been rejected by the R.C.A., therefore, no interference in the order impugned is called for.

(2.) Specific provisions are made under Section 23 of the Act wherein it is prescribed that a specified landlord can make an application for eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bonafide requirement. Section 23-C of the Act specifically prescribes that a tenant on whom the summons is served of such an application submitted by the specified landlord is required to move an application in writing within 15 days from the date of service of the summons, describing the reasons and the grounds for defending the application, duly supported with an affidavit and only after considering such application, the Rent Controlling Authority may grant permission to such a tenant to defend such a claim of eviction. Unless such a permission is granted, a tenant/defendant is not entitled to raise any defence in the proceedings before the R.C.A. From the documents available on record, it is not clear whether any such application was made by the applicant or not seeking permission/leave to defend. This particular aspect whether such a permission is necessary or not has already been considered by this Court in the case of Ashish Sahu vs. Smt. Sushila Devi Chauhan,2007 2 MPACJ 19 and in the case of Dilip Baghela vs. Virendra Kumar Choubey, Civil Revision No. 503/2010, decided on 16.08.2011 and it has been held that unless such a permission is granted, a defendant is not entitled to contest the claim of eviction made by any specified landlord.

(3.) Since there is no proof of the fact that such a finding recorded by the R.C.A. in order dated 23.10.2012 was incorrect, it has to be held that the applicant has not obtained leave to defend the claim made by the respondent No. 1, under the provisions of Section 23-C of the Act, which is the mandatory requirement. In view of this, if any subsequent applications submitted by the applicant have been rejected by the R.C.A., it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the R.C.A. or there was a jurisdictional error committed by the R.C.A. In view of the aforesaid, revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Let the proceedings be concluded by the R.C.A. expeditiously.