S.C. PANDE Vs. COMMANDER BHAGAT RAM BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non-applicant/plaintiff moved an application on 28-11-1983 under section 23-A (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal claiming ejectment of the applicant/defendant from the premises let out to him on the ground of bona fide need. The summons issued by the Rent Controlling Authority were served on the applicant on 1-12-1983. On 14-12-1983, applicant filed application for grant of leave to contest the prayer for eviction which was within the period prescribed. The said application on the day it was filed, was not supported by an affidavit. The affidavit in support was filed on 5-1-1983. By the impugned order dated 10-1-1984, the application for the leave to contest was rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority on the ground that the application for grant of leave to contest was not supported by an affidavit, and that 'no sufficient cause' has been shown to condone the delay in filing the said affidavit. The Rent Controlling Authority passed order of ejectment of the applicant from the premises in question. It is against this order that the present revision has preferred.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the applicant could not filed the affidavit in support of the application for the reasons that the applicant was out of Bhopal. It was further contended that the affidavit was on record on the date the impugned order was passed and rejection of the application for grant of leave was too technical particularly when there was substantial compliance of the provisions of Sec. 23-C (i) of the Act. Reliance was placed on Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Dominion of India, AIR 1984 SC. 1004 . Sangram Singh Vs. Election Trbiunal Kotah, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 425 . and People's Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1473 .

(3.) The learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that neither substantial defence was pleaded by the applicant nor the affidavit disclosed sufficient cause for the delay in filing the affidavit. According to the learned counsel, there had been no error in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the Rent Controlling Authority and the finding that no sufficient cause had been showed being a finding on fact, was interference is called for in this revision.