MADAN LAL VOHRA Vs. NIRMALA DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 23-E(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) has been filed seeking to challenge order dated 17.12.2012 passed in Case No.2-A/6/2011-2012 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Betul (hereinafter referred to as the RCA for short).

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the respondent claiming herself to be a specified landlord as defined under the Act, made an application under Section 23-A of the Act, seeking eviction of the applicants. It was stated that the respondent was a widow. Her late husband has obtained a lease of the land from the State Government and constructed a small hotel and restaurant. Since the husband of the respondent expired untimely, the hotel was given on lease to the applicant No.1, who was the employee working in the said hotel from the time of the husband of the respondent. The applicant No.1 was paying Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent, but all of a sudden the said payment was stopped. Since the son of the respondent has become adult and capable of running her business, the demise premises is required for the bonafide need of the respondent and her son.

(3.) Upon making of this application, the RCA issued notice to the applicants who were served. Under the Scheme of the Act, the applicants were required to move an application under Section 23-C of the Act seeking leave of the Court to defend. It appears that instead of making appropriate application in that respect when the notice of the eviction application was served on the applicants, some sort of objection was filed by them on 31.5.2012. However, the objection was not with respect to the bonafides of requirement of the respondent, but it was said that such an application for eviction was not maintainable in view of the provisions of M.P. Parisar Kirayedari Adhiniyam, 2010. Such an objection was rejected and an appeal was filed by the applicants in the Court of District Judge. In response to the notice of the appeal issued to the respondent, the fact was brought to the notice of the appellate Court that the leave to defend as required to be obtained by the applicants was not obtained from the RCA in terms of the Scheme of the Act and as such, the appeal was also not maintainable. Some sort of written argument was filed before the Additional District Judge Betul by the applicants in the said appeal wherein they have said that no such leave was required to be obtained and such an appeal under Section 31 of the Act could have been filed before the Court.