PRABHUDAYAL GOYANKA Vs. RAVISH CHANDRA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 5/10/2007 passed by Rent Controlling Authority Ujjain (which shall be referred as "RCA") in case No. 15-A/90 )7- (A)/95-96 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that predecessor-in-title of the respondent/Dr.Ravish Chandra Pandey filed a petition for eviction under section 23 (A) of M.R Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") on 29.3.1990 alleging that the deceased/respondent is the owner of the house bearing house No. 108, Nazar Ali Marg, Phutta Darwaja in front of Singh Bhawani Mandir, Ujjain. It was alleged that in the said accommodation petitioner is residing as tenant @ Rs. 50/- per month. It was alleged that deceased is a retired government employee and is landlord of the category defined under section 23- J of the Act. It was alleged that the suit accommodation which is residential is required by the deceased bonafidely for his need and the need of his family. It was prayed that order of eviction be passed against the petitioner. The petition was contested by the petitioner by moving an application for leave to defend. The leave was granted thereafter, written statement was filed. During pendency of the petition deceased Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey died and his legal representatives were brought on record. After framing of issue and recording of evidence, RCA passed an order of eviction against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned RCA is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. It is submitted that the suit was filed by deceased Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey on 19/3/1990 for his need. It is submitted that deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey was resident of Raipur while the suit property is situated at Ujjain. It is submitted that in the suit an application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner and leave was gratned by learned RCA, thereafter, written statement was filed by the petitioner on 3/9/1990. It is submitted that on 10.3.1992 an application for amendment was filed by deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey. Along with amendment application, an application for impleading the parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was also filed on 10/3/1992. Application filed by the deceased respondent was allowed vide order 25/7/1992 and consequential amendment was made by the petitioner on 15/9/1992. Thereafter, evidence of respondent was recorded on 18/1/1993 and on 2/9/1995 the petition filed by the respondent was dismissed in default. Thereafter an application for restoration was filed on 30/9/1995. Upon the said application the proceedings were restored. It is submitted that after recording of the statement of deceased Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey which was recorded on 18/1/1993, evidence of petitioner was recorded on 16.7.2000. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner moved an application for amendment on 17/7/2000 which was allowed on 21/4/2001 and thereafter on 19/9/2001 deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey died. It is submitted that mother of the deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey namely Savitribai also died for whose requirement the petition was filed and legal representatives of the deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey were brought on record vide application dated 26.12.2001 which was allowed vide order dated 8.7.2002. Thereafter, right to adduce the evidence of the petitioner was closed by learned RCA on 18.11.2002. It is submitted that after closing the right to adduce the evidence of petitiner an application for amendment was filed by the respondents, who are legal representative of deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey on 17.5.2006 and plaint was amended in compliance of the order whereby the application was allowed. It is submitted that thereafter on 14.2.2007 petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and prayer was made for amendment, which was allowed vide order dated 4.5.2007. Thereafter, after hearing final arguments on 25.9.2007 the eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 5.10.2007 against which the present petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside, It is submitted that in fact original petition was filed by the respondent for the need of mother of deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey and upon death of mother of deceased/Dr. Ravish Chandra Pandey which took place in the year 2001, petition was substantially amended vide application dated 17.5.2006 which was allowed on 30/1/2006. It is submitted that after the consequential amendment was made by the petitioner by moving application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which was allowed on 4.5.2007. It is submitted that after framing of additional issues and after hearing the parties petition filed by the respondent was allowed and eviction order was passed. It is submitted that since the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend was allowed, therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned RCA to hold the inquiry. After holding inquiry on the basis of pleadings of parties learned RCA has allowed the application which is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Jain Transport Co. v. Sakinabai, AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 106 wherein while taking into consideration the provision of section 23,23-D ofAct, this Court has observed that landlord has to first prove various ingredients except bonafied nature of requirement, casting on tenant burden of adducing evidence in rebuttal is illegal.