SOBRAN SINGH DARSHAN SINGH Vs. DEENDAYAL GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961 for petitioner-tenant's eviction was filed before the Rent Controlling authority by the landlord-non-petitioner. In that case a two-fold objection was taken to the maintainability of the application and the objection having been rejected, this revision is preferred.

(2.) SHRI S. B. Mishra, Petitioner's counsel, has reiterated both objections but I am satisfied only to uphold one and on that ground itself I am inclined to quash the impugned order. I do not find any merit in the other contention of Shri Mishra, which i would like to deal and dispose of first.

(3.) IT is submitted by Shri Mishra that because the landlord had earlier filed a suit in the civil Court in which he had inter alia taken the ground of sub-letting; that though he had later withdrawn the suit no eviction order under Section 23-A can be passed in the instant proceeding by the Authority directing the petitioner (tenant) to put the non-petitioner (landlord) in possession of the suit house. The contention is evidently. founded on the misconception that despite withdrawal of the suit the factum of sub-letting stated in the plaint in that suit should be construed as an admission on the part of the non-petitioner that the suit house was not in possession of the petitioner but of somebody else. The fallacy in the argument is so obvious that to deal therewith no consideration or discussion of complicated facts is necessary. If the withdrawal of the suit proved anything it definitely rather proved that whatever averments or statements were made in the plaint in the earlier suit were given a go-by by the plaintiff himself. No question of admission of any fact by the plaintiff arises in the circumstances of this case and accordingly I find no merit in counsel's submission that the Authority could not have jurisdiction to entertain the application made under Section 23-A to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act despite withdrawal of the earlier suit by the non-petitioner.