SHYAMRAO Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order dated 31.8 1984 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandleshwar, in Eviction Case No. 19-A-90.0083-84.

(2.) The tenant-petitioner has challenged the order on numerous grounds, but Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has urged only one ground, namely, that a composite order, as has been passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, is liable to be quashed, in view of the fact that leave to defend and the order for eviction are two distinct judicial processes of law and should not be combined together, as has been done in the instant case.

(3.) Shri Dube, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has on the other hand submitted that apparently and indisputably the application for leave to defend was filed much after the statutory period, i.e. on 11.4.84, whereas under Sec. 23-G of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the application for leave to defend should have been filed by 15.2.1984. But till 4.4.1984, no such application was filed by the petitioner. It was only on 11.4.1984 that the application was moved. It is to be noted with regret that on 16.2.1984 when the learned counsel appeared for the defendant-tenant, he prayed for time to move an application for leave to defend the suit, little realising the law on the point and the consequences that would ensue. Thereafter on 8.3.1984 there was strike. On 19.3.84 the Presiding Officer was out and on 11.4.84 an order for recording ex parte evidence was passed. On 12.4.1984 the Presiding Officer was on leave and on 11.4.84 an application was moved and the final order passed on 31.8.84.