DAYAL Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT a scene ! The same authority on the same day on similar facts has said monosyllabic 'yes' to relief in one case and 'no' in the other. Here then is the inconsonant conundrum. Law and logic are not distant neighbours. So l begin at the beginning.

(2.) THE aforesaid two revision petitions, first by the tenant and second by the landlord are heard as connected matters, in view of admitted position of involvement of common question of facts and law, and are being decided by this common order.

(3.) (i) Civil Revision No. 910 of 1994: This is the case of "yes" to relief. The tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the order of eviction dated 12.8.1994 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Neemuch under Section 23-A(a) of the Act, for occupation as residence on an application presented on 26.3.1985 by the landlord, being the landlord of specified category under Section 23-J of the Act, and registered as 17/(sic)90(6)/84- 85. Leave to defend was granted under Section 23-C of the Act. Final order was passed after about Nine Years in utter disregard of Section 23-D(1) of the Act. Final order of eviction is impugned by the tenant herein. (ii) Civil Revision No.1062 of 1994: This is the case of "no" to relief. The landlord has filed this revision petition under Section 23-E of the Act against the order of rejection dated 12.8.1994 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Neemuch on an application. presented on 18.3.1985 by the same landlord and registered as 15/(sic)-90(6)/84-85, under Section 23-A(a) of the Act for occupation as residence. Earlier this application was allowed and order of eviction was passed on 23.10.1991 i.e. after about six years.