SUDAM NAYAK Vs. KANHEI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari and for quashing of the impugned orders under Annexures-2 and 3.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that admittedly the father of the petitioners was a tenant in respect of Sabik Plot No.846, area Ac.1.76 decimals under Sabik Khata No.76 in village-Sandhagada corresponding to Hal Plot No.837, area Ac 1.80 decimals under Hal Khata No.299. The landlord Sri Kanhei Sahoo, opposite party no.1 on the premises of non payment of arrear rent initiated O.L.R. Case under Sec. 14 (1) (c) of the O.L.R. Act praying for eviction of the tenant, the father of the present petitioners on the premises of non-payment of arrear rent for the period 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. The original proceeding vide O.L.R. Case No.1 of 1985 was dismissed on the ground of filing of the application beyond the prescribed period of time but after observing that the tenant was utilizing the land in proper use. Appeal being filed, at the instance of the owner vide O.L.R. Appeal No.20 of 1987, the appeal was allowed vide Annexure-2 directing eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was a defaulter for payment of due within the stipulated time. A revision at the instance of the present petitioners challenging the appeal order was dismissed vide Annexure-3. Assailing the impugned order under Annexure-3, Sri Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that looking into the provisions contained in Sec. 15 (2) proviso of the O.L.R. Act in the event of arrear involving a dispute for eviction of the tenant, the mandatory requirement of the statute is before directing for eviction of the tenant, the tenant is required to be given reasonable opportunity to pay arrear rent to his landlord. It is in these premises, Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders passed in the appeal as well as in the revision are bad in law. Besides, looking to the limitation provided under the statute, claim of arrear for 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1983-84 could not have been entertained.

(3.) Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that even looking to the provision assuming that there can be no direction for eviction of the tenant without being 2. Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that even looking to the provision assuming that there can be no direction for eviction of the tenant without being affording an opportunity of payment of arrears, the appellate order cannot be sustained. So far the direction contained therein in respect of arrear dues involving the year 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, which were all grossly time barred being beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the O.L.R. Act, consequently, revisional authority for having not considered the above appropriately the revisional order also cannot be sustained.