IBRAHIM KHAN Vs. DR.DEVENDRA NATH BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant challenging the order of eviction dtd. 30/07/2005 passed by SDO and Rent Controlling Authority, Seoni in Revenue Case No.02/A-90/2004-05, whereby on the application filed by respondent/landlord under Sec. 23-A(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), an order of eviction has been passed on the ground of personal requirement of respondent himself.

(2.) The present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the learned RCA has erred in passing the ex-parte order of eviction because after dismissal of the main application, learned RCA even in absence of petitioner and his counsel, restored the same on 29/09/2003 even without proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner/tenant and thereafter, permitted the respondent/landlord to amend the main application for eviction and passed the order of eviction without giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/tenant, whereas, fresh notice to the petitioner/tenant ought to have been issued. As such, he submits that learned RCA did not decide the application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Sec. 23-C of the Act for leave to defend. He further submits that during pendency of the present civil revision, the respondent/landlord has along with other co-owners, transferred the entire property including the tenanted shop/premises to Shri Vasdev Khatri and in support of his submission he has filed an application under orsder 41 rule 27 CPC annexing the order of mutation dtd. 4/2/2011 passed by Nazul Officer, Seoni. As such, he submits that now the respondent/landlord is not entitled for possession of tenanted shop, especially in the circumstances where the subsequent purchaser has not been substituted in place of the respondent/landlord.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that learned RCA has rightly passed the order of eviction and there is no illegality in the impugned order of eviction and without disputing the transfer of the tenanted shop, he placed reliance on the decisions of supreme court in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 and Shakuntala Bai & others Vs. Narayan Das & others (2004) 5 SCC 772, with the submissions that even after death of original landlord, his legal representatives are entitled to execute the order of eviction and similar is the position in the present case where after transfer of the tenanted property, the subsequent purchaser may get the fruits of decree/order of eviction and he prays for dismissal of the civil revision.