MOHD. RAFIQ Vs. MAHILA HANSA KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 29.3.93 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandsaur passed in Case No. 1/89-89/A90 : 7 : whereby the objection of the applicant regarding execution of the order of eviction has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that non-applicant Mahila Hansa Kunwar has filed a suit against the present applicant for eviction. There was a compromise on 17.7.1990. As such a compromise decree was passed and wherein it was directed that the tenant (applicant here) shall deliver the possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord (non-applicant here) on 1.11.1992. However, the same was not done. Hence the landlord filed application for delivery of possession and further prayed for police-help in the matter.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY this decree was obtained under Section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This Chapter III-A for eviction of tenant on the grounds of bonafide requirement has been added by amendment in the Act and Section 23-A of the Act provides that the application under Section 23-A shall be filed in Form specified in the Second Schedule. Order 5 and Order 16 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable for issuance and service of summons to the defendant. Section 35 of the Act provides that the R.C.A. shall exercise powers of Civil Court for execution of order and the order shall be executable as a decree of Civil Court. Chapter III-A of the Act itself does not provide for framing of formal decree and therefore, the copy of the decree is not required to be attached along with the application for execution and for the delivery of possession. In such a situation the application giving details shall be sufficient. In this case the landlord has filed an application after giving the full details and, therefore, no objection on that ground could be taken, learned R.C.A. has rightly rejected the objection on this ground.