TEHMRAS KHARODI Vs. TEHAMTAN M THANEWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant/tenant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4th September, 1984, passed by Seventh Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/1983. confirming the Judgment and decree of eviction passed under section 20-AA of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'), on 23-2-1983. in CS No. 108-A/1982 by Fifth Civil Judge, Class II, Indore.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this appeal are: The appellant/defendant is a tenant of the suit accommodation (house) on monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The plaintiff/respondent on 11-3-1982 instituted a suit and claimed a decree for eviction under section 20-AA, which was inserted in the Act from 7-4-1981, by M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 198.1. The plaintiff, as a retired Government servant, claimed possession of the suit accommodation on the ground that at the time of retirement, i.e., on 31-8-1980, the respondent was employed in M.P. Electricity Board (for short, 'MPEB') and was holding the post of Mains Inspector, that the said post was held by him in public service in connection with the affairs of the State and that the suit accommodation is "bona fide" required by him for the benefit of his son Rohinton and that there is no other alternative suitable accommodation available in the local area of Indore. A certificate No. 230/BE/W, dated 1-12-1981, as required under section 20-AA of the Act, issued by the Controlling Officer, Shri V. K. Agrawal, Divisional Engineer, West City Division, MPEB, Indore, was produced. The appellant denied all the allegations, the genuineness of the certificate was denied. The defendant resisted the claim under section 20-AA of the Act, that the plaintiff is not a retired Government servant; as such, the special provision for recovery of possession under section 20-AA cannot be invoked by the plaintiff for seeking eviction. On production of the certificate, which was considered as a conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, without recording any evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit accommodation.

(3.) The defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. In appeal, the court held that the MPEB is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and, according to the Notification published in M P. Rajpatra, dated 27-9-1961 the respondent was categorised and shown in Combined Gradation List as Field Officer in the Electricity Establishment of Electricity Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh, and The Controlling Officer has issued the certificate, which is a conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, hence, the decree was rightly passed the defendant, aggrieved of the said judgment and decree of the Court below, has preferred this second appeal, which was admitted by this court on 12-10-1984 on the following substantial question of law: -