POONAM KUMAR DUGGAL Vs. INDRAJEET SINGH DUGGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions have been filed by three persons, who were non -applicants in the eviction proceedings drawn by the non -applicant No.

(2.) BEFORE the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as 'RCA'), against the order of eviction passed on 18 -6 -2010, therefore, all the three revisions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The non -applicant No. 2 claiming himself to be the specified landlord, being a handicapped person and a Govt, servant moved an application under section 23 -A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Accommodation Act') seeking eviction of the applicant. Initially the application was filed against one Shri Lal Singh and Shri Kuldeep Singh. During the pendency of the application, which is in fact remained pending for enormous reasons as have been reflected in the order -sheet for a long time of 25 years, the original non -applicant No. 1 therein, Lal Singh, died and the substitution of legal representatives was done and the other applicants in other revisions became party to the proceedings. The claim made by the non -applicant No. 2 was that he being the landlord of the demised non -residential accommodation, was required the same for the purposes of establishing his own hospital. A notice was issued to the applicants seeking vacation of the demised premises but since an evasive reply was given, the application was required to be filed. The application was contested and a written statement was filed saying that suit shop was in possession of one Indrajeet Singh Duggal, being son of Shri Lal Singh Duggal, who was running an electrical shop. The family being joint Hindu family, there was no question of sub -letting of the shop. There was no bona fide need available to the non -applicant No. 2 to get an order of eviction. It was denied that the non -applicant No. 2 was physically disabled. After prolonged proceedings, the application for eviction of the tenants has been allowed, eviction order has been passed by the RCA against which these revisions are filed.

(3.) IN the other Civil Revision No. 312/2010, almost similar claim has been made. It is pointed out that the order of restoration of the civil suit was erroneously passed. An apprehension was shown by the applicant in the said case that he was having no faith in the Presiding Officer of the RCA that any justice would be done, he had approached the Collector, Bhopal for transfer of the case from the said authority to any other authority but no order was passed within the knowledge of the applicant. It is contended that in fact the case was posted for pronouncement of the order in open Court on 18 -6 -2010 but no order was passed within his knowledge on that date nor any order was shown to him. In fact knowing fully well that a complaint is made against the RCA before the Collector, Bhopal, an antedated order was passed by the RCA to frustrate the interim stay granted by this Court in civil revision. This being so, it is contended that the order passed by the RCA is bad in law.