H.D. SONI Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's revision under Section 3-E(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act against grant of leave to defend to the tenant by the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-C of the Act. The only thing said in the impugned order dated 25.1.1985 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is that leave to defend is granted to the tenant after perusal of the tenant's application and the objection filed by the landlord. No reason for grant of leave is mentioned in the impugned order.

(2.) THE undisputed facts appearing from the record are sufficient to indicate that the impugned order of the Rent Controlling Authority granting leave to the tenant to defend deserves to be set aside. The application was filed by the landlord under Section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need on 14.8.1984. Summons in the prescribed form was issued by the Rent Controlling Authority to the tenant which was served on him on 24.8.1984. It was expressly mentioned in the summons that the application for leave to defend, if any, had to be filed by the tenant within 15 days of service of the summons which is also the express requirement of Section 23-C. However, it was after the expiry of the prescribed period of 15 days that the tenant filed the application for leave to defend on 17.9.1984 and no prayer was made for condoning the delay in filing the application. Obviously no attempt was made to indicate any cause, much less sufficient cause, for the delay. In such a situation, the application made for leave to defend could not be allowed by the Rent Controlling Authority without first condoning the delay after recording a finding of existence of sufficient cause to explain the delay. The Rent Controlling Authority, in the impugned order, has not even said anything in this respect and leave to defend has been granted mechanically without adverting either to the question of delay or to the merits of the application. This order has, therefore, to be set aside.