BHANWARLAL Vs. MAHADEV PRASAD BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority does not stand a moment's scrutiny. I must commend the courage of non -petitioner's counsel Shri R.D. Jain who has made vigorous effort to support the order saying that the officers who hold the posts of Rent Controlling Authority are not judicially trained and, therefore, they should be given some latitude and orders passed by them be construed liberally. It is also the contention of Shri Jain that no case at all for relief in this Court under Section 23 -E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'Act', has been made out by the petitioner.

(2.) I am, however, of the view that no case at all to support the impugned order is made out. If I have to say anything more, I have merely to Say that it is high time that the State Government wakes up to its constitutional duty of placing such officers to hold such responsible post as of the Rent Controlling Authority as are judicially trained or have had some experience at the Bar to pick up judicial training. It is not for the first time that I hive the occasion to say this as long, ago, in several cases, I said so when I took the view that the question or issues of "leave" and "eviction" have to be decided separately as Legislature intended it to be so decided making special provision in that regard. There can be no telescoping of the proceeding judicially which is legislatively prohibited. If the Rent Controlling Authority makes bold to telescope proceeding, it is the constitutional duty of the High Court to see that legislative mandate is not defeated by such an onslaught and affront to the Legislative will. Unfortunately, several decisions rendered not only by me, but by several other Judges of this Court have made it manifestly clear that if Rent Controlling Authorities are doing anything vigorously, one thing they are doing deliberately with great force and vehemence and that is the frustration of the Legislative will, telescoping judicial proceedings in a most injudicious manner. What they think their duty to do is to issue Executive fiats, ordering eviction in uncontrolled mariner exercising power in an unbriddled manner without having any regard: or respect either for the letter and spirit of the statutory provision or for the law laid down by this Court which is binding on them.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order leaves no doubt about the fact that the application of the tenant for leave to defend disclosed several facts which could disentitle the landlord to claim his eviction and these facts are also noted in the impugned order, such as, the tenant (sic) had no bona fide requirement of the suit premises inasmuch as he had already started bis shop in another premises of his own and further that the claim for eviction on the ground that the suit premises required repairs was a ground which was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Authority to adjudge. Unfortunately, the Authority, in the instant case, preferred to put on blinkers and ignored those facts, but preferred rather to decide the matter on merits by adopting a leap -frog procedure. Nothing was said as to why the leave to defend could be, or has to be, or was rejected and yet, a final decision was rendered acting under Section 23 -D without the Authority satisfying itself as to whether the landlord had made out the ground for the tenant's eviction under Section 23 -A (a) of the Act. 1987 MPLJ 113. 6. For all the foregoing reasons, it is difficult for me to accept the submissions of Shri Jain which are wholly meritless because the impugned order is totally void of any merit at all. It is palpably not only a mechanical order, but also an unconstitutional order in that the order has been passed in violation of the constitutional mandate that the Authorities and Courts subordinate to this Court in discharging their function within the jurisdiction of this Court must act and abide by the derisions and the law laid down by this Court. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Authority shall render fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law after hearing parties. Counsel shall appear before the Authority on 24th May, 1987 and the matter shall thereafter be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with lew. 8. A copy of this order must go to the Chief Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, as also to the Secretaries to Government, Madhya Pradesh, in Law. Revenue and General Administration Departments. It is hoped that the Government will be mindful of the view expressed in this order that appointments to the Office of Rent Controlling Authority are made of such persons who have legal knowledge and judicial training and who know to behave judicially and are not disposed to act in arbitrary man -rneas pure Executive Officers.