JAYABAI DEORAMBHAI JETHWA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the owner of house No. 4/130, Fafadih rariput. This house was let out to one J. R. Dewangan. Shri Dewangan quitted the house. It fell vacant and, therefore, Authorised Officer i. e. respondent No. 1 started proceedings to allot that house in terms of Section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961 which is undoubtedly, applicable to the accommodation situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. As the respondent No. 1 proposed to allot the house to respondent No. 2, the petitioner appeared before the said authority and put forward her claim stating that she needed the accommodation for her own occupation and, therefore, the same be not allotted to either of the respondent No. 2 or to anyone else. The Authorised Officer got the spot inspected by Rent Control Inspector and also recorded some evidence. The petitioner also placed before the Authority, the area of house at present in her occupation and urged. that looking to the number of family members in her family, the accommodation in her occupation was not sufficient to satisfy the need. She thus, urged the. need for additional accommodation. The Rent Control Authority rejected the petitioner's contention and allotted the house to the respondent No. 2 by its order dated 23-7-1983 (Annexure P- 1 ). It is this order which is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further prayer made is that looking to the petitioner's need of the house for her own occupation, she may be permitted to occupy the house herself.

(2.) THE Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 like such other Rent control legislations aims at regulating and controlling of letting and rent of accommodations and eviction of tenants therefrom. As a beneficial piece of legislation, it is intended to protect interest of tenants and to prevent rack-renting. One of the avowed objects of this piece of legislation is also to control letting of accommodation and to ensure occupation of the accommodation by them who need it. This necessarily has resulted in imposition of certain limitations on the rights of the landlords to use their accommodations and thus, from the landlords point of view the Act is restrictive. The limitations so imposed by different provisions of the Act are reasonable and in the past the Courts turned down any challenge to these restrictions whenever made. Those restrictions have always been found to be reasonable and within legislative competence. Nevertheless, none of these restrictions has completely taken away the right of the landlord to occupy their accommodations if they need them for their residence or business and such need whenever put forward has to be considered.

(3.) SECTION 12 of the Act ensures continuance of occupation of the tenanted accommodation by a tenant. But for this provision, a landlord could evict his tenant by resort to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Now, however, in view of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act, he cannot do so, notwithstanding the provision of the Transfer of Property Act. But again, this restriction on the rights of landlord is not absolute. He can eject his tenant on establishing any of the grounds mentioned in various clauses of Section 12 (1) of the Act. One of such grounds is the need of the landlord to occupy the premises himself [ (Section 12 (1) and (g)