The deeming and presumption clauses in the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act were applied to uphold the eviction order, emphasizing the landlord's entitlement to possession upon fulfilling the specified conditions.

1. This revision under Section 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth "the Act") has been filed by the tenant/applicant challenging the propriety, illegality and correctness of the impugned order dated 1-3-2006 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (henceforth "the Authority") in Case No. 9-90(8) 2004-05, whereby order of eviction has been passed in favour of the landlord/respondent.

2. Fact material for disposal of this revision as unfolded before the Authority is that the respondent claiming herself to be the landlord in accordance with Section 23J of the Act, filed an application under Section 23A of the Act for recovery of possession of the suit accommodation, averring that the suit accommodation is required bonafide for starting business of her major son Kamlesh Kumar and she has no other suitable alternative accommodation available in the city. Applicant/tenant was served with notice in accordance Section 23-C of the Act. Admittedly, notice was served on the tenant/applicant, but he did not file any application for grant of leave to contest the application filed by the landlord/respondent for recovery of the possession of the suit accommodation. His defence was struck off by the Authority vide order dated 6-2-2006. Thereafter statement of Kamlesh Kumar was recorded by the Authority and the impugned order of eviction against the applicant has been passed.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the Authority did not pass any order of eviction under Section 23C of the Act, therefore, the impugned order passed on the basis of evidence of attorney Kamlesh Kumar in absence of oral statement of landlord Smt. Kundubai is illegal. He further contended that the attorney on behalf of the landlord is not competent to prove the case of landlord and in absence of statement of Kundubai, adverse inference should have been drawn against her. In order to support his contention, he relied on judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and Anr. , and judgment rendered in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Limited and Ors. reported in 2004 AIR SCW 7064. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the landlord/ respondent contended that the Authority has not only passed the order on evidence adduced by landlord, but also took shelter of the provisions as envisaged under Sections 23-C and 23-D (3) of the Act.

4. For reference, Sections 23C and 23D of the Act are reproduced as below:

23C. Tenant not entitled to contest except certain circumstances. - (1) The tenant on whom the summons is served in the form specified in the Second Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the accommodation unless he filed within fifteen days from the date of service of the summons, an application supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Rent Controlling Authority as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or in default of his obtaining such leave, or if such leave is refused, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by tenant. The Rent Controlling Authority shall in such case pass an order of eviction of the tenant from the accommodation:

Provided that the Rent Controlling Authority may, for sufficient cause shown by the tenant, excuse the delay of the tenant in entering appearance or in applying for leave to defend the application for eviction and where 'ex parte' order has been passed may set it aside.

(2) The Rent Controlling Authority shall, within one month of the date of receipt of application, give to the tenant, if necessary leave to contest the application, if the application supported by an affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground specified in