DURGAPRASAD VERMA Vs. K P DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gopallalji Maharaj Trust, Hanumantal, Jabalpur owned series of houses including the house No. 92/6, Gopalbag, Jabalpur, which was let out to M/s. Gopal Hemraj, Jabalpur, through its proprietor Kanhaiyalal Panda, petitioner No. 2. For the last about 12 years, Kanhaiyalal Panda had sublet the accommodation to the petitioner No. 1, Durga Prasad Verma, who is now in actual occupation of this accommodation The landlord has not so far filed any suit for ejectment of the tenant, namely, M/s. Gopal Hemraj for this unlawful subletting of the accommodation to Durga Prasad.

(2.) The authorised officer exercising powers under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), asked the landlord vide notice dated 15-11-79 (Annexure P-4) to supply certain information as to the block No. 92/6. The landlord was also required to inform the authorised Officer, the names of the tenants and the actual occupants of block No. 92/6 and whether the tenants had built their own houses Annexure P-6 is the reply submitted by the landlord to the notice Annexure P-4. On receipt of this reply, the authorised officer issued a notice (Annexure P-6) to the petitioner Durga Prasad Verma requiring him to show cause why he should not be asked to vacate the accommodation as his occupation was unauthorised. The reply by Durga Prasad is Annexure P-7. Some inquiry was made and by order 1-3-1982 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner Durga Prasad was asked to vacate the accommodation by 8-3-1982. On failure, some further action was contemplated. Thereupon, the petitioners filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the entire action taken and the direction to quit the accommodation in question made by the authorised officer. The authorised officer filed his return justifying the action taken by him. The matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court and was heard on 3-9-1982. The question raised was that when a tenant during the subsistence of his tenancy unauthorisedly sublet the accommodation to which the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is applicable, can it be said that the accommodation 'has fallen vacant' within the meaning of Section 39 of the Act. The Division Bench hearing that petition noticed some conflict in the earlier decisions of this Court, and, therefore, the matter has been referred for decision by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up for hearing before this Bench.

(3.) The contention raised by Shri Swarnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the tenant, i. e., petitioner No. 2, sublet the accommodation to the petitioner No. 1, and, therefore, the accommodation never fell vacant. Consequently, it was said the provisions contained in Section 39 of the Act were not attracted and the authorised officer never got jurisdiction to allot the accommodation under Section 39 of the Act arid to ask the petitioner No. 1 to vacate the same. Section 39 of the Act is as follows: