RAMDAS Vs. SHAKUNTALADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Single Judge Hon'ble S.K. Dubey, J., in the course of deciding this revision preferred by the tenant under section 23 -E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short, the 'Act') against the order of eviction dated 8.4.1993, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 23 -A (b) of the Act, noticed that there is a cleavage of opinion on the interpretation and procedural requirement contained in section 23 -C of the Act and has referred the matter to a Larger Bench for resolving the conflict.

(2.) THE provision under consideration for interpretation and determination of its scope is section 23 -C, which reads as under: -

(3.) THE above view was approved and also followed by learned Single Judge S.K. Dubey, J., in Ram Chandra v. Mangilal (1988 MPRCJ N -23) and Ganesh Prasad v. Ratanlal (1989 MPRCJ NOC 22). The other two learned Judges in separate opinions, i.e., V.D. Gyani, J., in Rent Controlling Authority v. Babulal (1987 MPRCJ N -43) and K.L. Shrivastava, J., in Hiralal v. Vinayak (1987 (II) MPWN 139), took almost a similar view. According to learned Single Judge S.K. Dubey, J., under section 23 -B a composite order of refusing leave and" an order of eviction cannot be passed without framing two separate issues for consideration in two stages. Learned Single Judge K.L. Shrivastava, J., in Hiralal's case (supra) relied on a decision in Jumma v. Birja (1986 MPRCJ 22) to hold that a composite order relating to 'leave' and 'eviction' is not contemplated under law.