SATISH SHYAM SONI Vs. NIRMAL PRAKASH AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI K. S. Wadhwa learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Umesh Trivedi learned counsel for the non-applicant. Parties are finally heard. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20-8-1998 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandla, in Case No. 3-A-90/7/1996-97 rejecting the application for grant of leave to defend and further directing eviction of the present-applicant from the suit premises, the applicant/tenant has filed this petition.

(2.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the applicant is that his application for grant of leave to defend was cursorily rejected and the learned authority has not cared to see the grounds on which leave was sought. According to him, the authority was not justified in observing that the grounds raised in support of the application for leave to defend were neither vague nor were moon shine nor were illegal. He submits that the authority has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and wrongly rejected the application for leave to defend. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that as the application did not project reasonable groundson which leave to defend can be granted nor the said application contained legal grounds or factual allegation, therefore, the Rent Controlling Authority was justified in refusing to grant leave to defend. He prays that the revision deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the parties.

(3.) COPY of the application seeking leave to defend has been filed by the present applicant. In the said application, the present applicant has submitted that on 8-8-1997, the land lady had sent a notice through her counsel but in the said notice, she did not claim that she was handicapped or she required the premises, on the basis of this, the applicant wanted to assert that the application filed by the land lady was not bona fide and the applicant was entitled to leave to defend. In paras 3 and 4 of the said application, the present applicant again made certain allegations against the non-applicant. In para 5, he has clearly stated that the pleadings raised by the land lady are false and have been concocted to claim clemency from the Rent Controlling Authority. The said application was supported by an affidavit. In the opinion of this Court, while granting or rejecting leave, the Rent Controlling Authority is required to see whether the allegations made by the defendant, if are accepted, would lead to non-suiting the plaintiff and if yes, then in such a case, leave must be granted. If the material allegations made by the plaintiff are denied or the very requirement for which the application has been filed is denied by the tenant, then the Rent Controlling authority is bound to grant leave to defend. If the allegations made by the landlord are uncontrovertible, then alone leave can be refused. If the court comes to the conclusion that the grounds on which leave is sought are forged, concocted, manufactured or moon shine, then also the Rent Controlling Authority can refuse leave and may proceed to grant an order in favour of the landlord. In a case where the defence raised by the tenant in his petition for grant of leave to defend appears to be reasonable, then grant of leave is a rule. In the present matter, it appears that without being alive to the legal position, the Rent Controlling Authority in a cursory has rejected the leave petition and in the opinion of this Court committed jurisdictional error.