RAJESH KUMAR RAJAK Vs. SMT. SUSHILA SINDHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been filed under Section 23E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'The Act') against the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Rent Controlling Authority, Mandla in Case No.06 (A-90/1)12-13 whereby learned Rent Controlling Authority allowed the non-applicant's/plaintiff's application filed under Section 23A of 'The Act' and directed the applicant to give the vacate possession of shop situated at Nazul Land No.53, 65/1 and 65/2 of Nazul Sheet No.18C (hereinafter called as 'suit shop') to non-applicant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant to the disposal of this revision are that non-applicant filed an application under Section 23A of Act before Rent Controlling Authority averring that she was the owner of suit shop which was given to applicant on monthly rent of Rs.375/- for 10 years. The non-applicant also executed agreement in this regard on 07.07.1997 in favour of applicant. The period of lease was expired on 31.07.2007, even then, the applicant did not give the vacant possession of suit shop to her. She is a widow lady and is in need of that suit shop for running her beauty parlor and for that purpose she has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of her own in her occupation in the city due to which she gave notice to applicant on 27.06.2007 through an advocate for vacating the suit shop but applicant did not vacate the suit shop so the applicant be directed to give the vacate possession of the suit shop to the non-applicant. On that, the Rent Controlling Authority registered the case No.06(A-90/1)12-13 and issued notice to applicant. The applicant after appearing before the authority filed an application and raised objection that the suit premises was let out to him on a lease for a period of 30 years and as the said period was not over the proceedings under the provisions of the Act were not tenable. The non-applicant also executed an agreement in favour of applicant and sold out the suit premises to him. On that, the Rent Controlling Authority dismissed the non-applicant's application observing that the dispute between the parties was to be resolved only and only by the Civil Court. Being aggrieved from that order, non-applicant filed Civil Revision No.340/2010 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.02.2013 holding that the objection, if any, raised by the applicant and even if the applicant was entitled to any claim in that respect, he either required to obtain the leave of the Rent Controlling Authority to contest the claim or to approach the Civil Court for obtaining any order on the strength of any agreement that was said to have been executed by the non-applicant in his favour. At any rate, the Rent Controlling Authority was not correct in rejecting the claim of the non-applicant and matter was remanded back to Rent Controlling Authority with the direction to decide the application of the non-applicant in terms of the provisions of Section 23D of the Act and also directed that the applicant, if he so wished, may make an application for grant of leave to contest before the Rent Controlling Authority. On that non-applicant filed a Review Petition No.661/2013 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 11.11.2013 and directed the Rent Controlling Authority that there was no need for the applicant to file a fresh application for grant of leave to contest the claim of eviction made by the non-applicant as the applicant had already filed an application for leave to defend and directed that the Rent Controlling Authority would first decide the applicant's application for grant of leave which was already pending before the Rent Controlling Authority and then proceed to decide the application for eviction filed by the non-applicant. On that Rent Controlling Authority again heard the case and rejected the applicant's application for leave to defend holding that application was not filed within time and then accepting the non-applicant's application passed the impugned order in her favour. Being aggrieved from that, applicant filed this Civil Revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Rent Controlling Authority after considering the objection raised by the applicant, dismissed the petition for eviction vide order dated 27.08.2009 against which non-applicant filed Civil Revision No.340/2010 and applicant filed Review Petition No.661/2013 whereby the order dated 27.08.2009 was set-aside and the Rent Controlling Authority was directed to first decide the application filed by the applicant under Section 23C of the Act for grant of leave and then proceed further but Rent Controlling Authority without appreciating the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and the circular dated 06.11.2000 transferred the proceedings to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide its order dated 12.04.2013, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) was without jurisdiction as he was not designated and notified as Rent Controlling Authority by the State Government under Section 23A of the Act. Earlier the Rent Controlling Authority held that there was a cognizable dispute and dismissed the petition for eviction, therefore, the authority cannot travel beyond the order of its predecessor and wrongly rejected the applicant's application for grant of leave to defend as time barred by not considering the period taken by the landlady/non-applicant in supply of documents towards the period of service of notice on tenant. The description of the property in the petition was also not correct. The suit premises is situated on plot No.18-C while in the application it is mentioned that suit premises is situated on plot No.19-C so according to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC, the application is not maintainable. The agreement filed by the non-applicant regarding tenancy is not admissible in the evidence because that agreement was not properly stamped so the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to act upon that agreement but Rent Controlling Authority without appreciating these facts wrongly taking that agreement into consideration held that the applicant is the tenant of the non-applicant. The Rent Controlling Authority allowed her application without taking the evidence of the non-applicant which is contrary to law. From the averments of the application, it also appears that non-applicant gave suit shop to applicant on rent after the death of her husband. So she is not entitled to file application under Section 23A of the Act. She also has other premises for running her shop. The Rent Controlling Authority without considering these facts wrongly allowed the non-applicant's application and rejected the applicant's application for leave to defend due to which the applicant could not produce his objection before Rent Controlling Authority. So it is prayed that the order be set-aside.