DULHANMAL Vs. ADAM BHOLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Dulhanmal s/o Hiranand a displaced person who claims for the time being to be in occupation of a house that belongs to opposite party No. 1, and bad been requisitioned by the Collector in 1950 and allotted to opposite party No. 2 also a displaced person. The latter has, however, been ordered by the Collector as the competent authority under Section 3(1)(a) (ii) of the Madhya Bharat Public Premises Eviction and Recovery of Rent Act (No. 27 of 1951) to vacate the premises for failure to pay the rent. He is no more in possession, and the Petitioner was found in the house. So, he has been ordered as an "unauthorised person", under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act to vacate in. On his failure, the Collector as competent authority, was himself to take steps to get him evicted from the premises; but that has been stayed pending the disposal of the present petition. The Petitioner himself wanted the Collector to give him a hearing on his claim to be entitled to possession by virtue of some arrangement he had made with the allotee in 1956, about six years after the allotment, which admittedly is not one with the authority or approval of the competent authority, or the Collector -acting as such who made the original allotment in 1950.

(2.) IN this Court, the Petitioner's prayer is that it should be decided that the Collector as competent authority has no real power to take action under the Madhya Bharat Public Premises Eviction and Recovery of Rent. Act or under any other special law. Further, even if the Act were applicable and the competent authority legally empowered to act under Section 3, this Court, it is prayed, should declare that section itself invalid as ultra vires of Article 14, on the ground of discrimination between different owners, and Article 19 as imposing unreasonable restrictions on the owning of property the mere possession of the premises being property of a kind.

(3.) THE facts necessary for our purpose are practically common ground. About the identity of the premises and the ownership of the opposite party No. 1, there is no controversy. The house was requisitioned by the Collector on 25 -9 -1950 under the Sthan Niyantran of 1950 and was allotted to the opposite party No. 2 the rent payable being Rs. 7/ - p. m. Ever since the allotment, there were complaints by the origional owner that the allottee had been defaulting; from time to time there were applications by him to the Collector to that effect. It is apros of one of such applications that the Collector has ordered the allottee to vacate.