Back
1995 JLJ 272
D.M. Dharmadhikari and Fakhruddin, JJ.
Ramdas v. Smt. Shakuntaladevi
C.R. No. 82 of 1993; on reference by Hon‘ble Justice Shri S.K Dubey, J;
Decided on 17.1.1995.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Chap. III-A and S. 23-J -- object of provisions contained in Chapter III-A is to provide special summary procedure for eviction of tenants of landlords specified in S. 23-J. [Para 12
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-C (1) --language used -- clearly suggests that in absence of leave tenant shall not contest the prayer of eviction -- further statement of landlord is deemed to be admitted by tenant -- thereafter nothing remains except passing of eviction order.
The expressions or language employed in the section clearly conveys that in the given contingencies no triable issues arise before the Rent Controlling Authority, who shall treat the statement made by the landlord in his application as having been admitted by the tenant. What remains for the Rent Controlling Authority thereafter is only to consider passing of the order of eviction.
The use of the word "shall" in the last part of section 23-C prima facie appears to be imperative to convey that the Rent Controlling Authority in the given situations under section 23-C has no other option but to straightway pass an order of eviction regardless of any other consideration legally permissible. [Para 12
It is difficult to accept the view as expressed in some of the Single Bench decisions of this Court that the Rent Controlling Authority while proceeding under section 23-C cannot pass a composite order of ‘leave‘ and ‘eviction‘. Such interpretation is not permissible by the clear language employed in the provision and keeping in view the object of the Act 1985 MPWN 566, 1987 JLJ 397, 1988 MPRCJ-N 23, 1989 MPRCJ-N 22, 1987 MPRCJ-N 43, 1987 (II) MPWN 139 overruled. 1985 JLJ 793 and AIR 1982 SC 1518 relied on. [Paras 13 & 15
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 23-A and23- 1-- tenant not contesting eviction application -- Rent Controlling Authority is still under obligation to see whether eviction application fulfils the requirements contemplated under. [Para 12
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && dkuwu dk bl izdkj vFkZ yxkuk pkfg, ftlls vf/kfu;fefr dh mÌs‘;iwfrZ gks && mica/k dh Hkk"kk vlE;d~ :i ls d"VdfYir ugha dh tkuk pkfg,A ¿ iSjk 9À ¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && v/;k; 3&d rFkk /kkjk 23&¥ && v/;k; 3&d esa varfoZ"V mica/kksa }kjk /kkjk 23&¥ esa fofufnZ"V Hkw&Lokfeksa ds vfHk/kkfj;ksa dh csn[kyh ds fy, fo‘ks"k laf{kIr izfØ;k micaf/kr djuk mfÌ"V gSA ¿ iSjk 12À ¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&x ¼1½ && iz;qDr Hkk"kk && ls Li"Vr;k bafxr gS fd btktr dh vfo|ekurk esa vfHk/kkjh csn[kyh ds fy, izkFkZuk dk izfrokn ugha djsxk && blds vfrfjDr Hkw&Lokeh dk dFku vfHk/kkjh }kjk Loh—r le>k tk,xk && rRi‘pkr~ csn[kyh vkns‘k ikfjr djus ds flok; dqN ckdh ugha jgrkA /kkjk esa iz;qDr vfHkO;fDr;ksa vFkok Hkk"kk ls Li"Vr;k O;Dr gS fd izLrqr izklafxd ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh ds le{k dksbZ Hkh fopkj.kh; fook|d ugha jgrs rFkk og Hkw&Lokeh dk dFku vfHk/kkjh }kjk Loh—r le>k tk,xk && rRi‘pkr~ csn[kyh vkns‘k ikfjr djus ds flok; dqN ckdh ugha jgrkA /kkjk 23&x ds vafre Hkkx esa ‘‘kCn **djsxk** dk iz;ksx izFke–"V~;k vkns‘kkRed izrhr gksrk gS ftlls O;Dr gS fd izLrqr ifjfLFkfr esa] /kkjk 23&x ds v/khu HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh dks blds vfrfjDr dksbZ fodYi ugha gS fd] oS/k :i ls vuqKs; fdlh Hkh ckr ij /;ku u nsrs gq,] og csn[kyh dk vkns‘k rqjar ikfjr djsA ¿ iSjk 12À bl U;k;ky; ds dqN ,dy U;k;ihB fofu‘p;ksa esa ;FkkfHkO;Dr –f"Vdks.k fd /kkjk 23&x ds v/khu dk;Zokgh ds le; HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh *btktr* rFkk *csn[kyh* dk la;qDr vkns‘k ikfjr ugha dj ldrk] ekuuk dfBu gSA mica/k esa iz;qDr Li"V }kjk rFkk vf/kfu;e ds mÌs‘; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ,slk fuoZpu vuqKs; ugha gSA 1985 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 566] 1987 ts ,y ts 397] 1988 ,e ih vkj lh ts & ,u 23] 1989 ,e ih vkj lh ts&,u 22] 1987 ,e ih vkj lh ts&,u 43] 1987 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 139 myVs x,A 1985 ts ,y ts 793 rFkk , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 1518 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13 rFkk 15À ¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && v/;k; 23&d rFkk /kkjk 23&> && vfHk/kkjh }kjk csn[kyh vkosnu dk izfrokn ugha && HkkM+k fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh fQj Hkh ns[kus dh ck/;rk/khu gS fd vkosnu esa /kkjk ds v/khu vuq/;kr vis{kk,¡ iwjh dh xbZ gSA ¿ iSjk 12À
D.M. Dhanmidhikari, J. -- 1 The learned Single Judge Hon'ble S.K. Dubey, J., in the course of deciding this revision preferred by the tenant under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short, the 'Act') against the order of eviction dated 8.4.1993, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 23-A (b) of the Act, noticed that there is a cleavage of opinion on the interpretation and procedural requirement contained in section 23-C of the Act and has referred the matter to a Larger Bench for resolving the conflict.
2. The provision under consideration for interpretation and determination of its scope is section 23-C, which reads as under:-
"23-C. Tenant not entitled to contest except under 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 files 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 the tenant The Rent Controlling Authority shall in such a case pass all 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 given to the tenant, if necessary, leave to contest the application, if the application supported by an affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the accommodation on the ground specified in section 23-A."
3. Learned Single Judge Dr. T.N. Singh, J., in Jyoti Swaroop v. Birja (1985 MPWN 566) and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajrrni Sahi and another (1987 JLJ 397), took the following view:-
"The issue of' leave' and of 'eviction' are separate and distinct and have to be decided separately, distinctly and indeed independently. Only when such a procedure is adopted, it can be said that there is judicial determination of the dual lis, otherwise not. It would have to be noticed that section 23-C is a self-contained Code and an independent provision. It forestalls determination of the question of 'eviction' raised under section 23-A by creating a valuable right in the tenant to defend landlord's action for eviction. Legislature advisedly pre-empted clubing and trial of the issues of 'leave' and 'eviction' by providing separate procedures for determination of the two issues separately. Indeed, the question of 'eviction' becomes determinable only when no 'leave' is prayed or when it is refused, not before that."
4. The above view was approved and also followed by learned Single Judge S.K. Dubey, J., in Ram Chandra v. Mangilal (1988 MPRCJ N-23) and Ganesh Prasad v. Ratanlal (1989 MPRCJ NOC 22). The other two learned Judges in separate opinions, i.e., V.D. Gyani, J., in Rent Controlling Authority v. Babulal (1987 MPRCJ N-43) and K.L. Shrivastava, J., in Hiralal v. Vinayak (1987 (II) MPWN 139), took almost a similar view. According to learned Single Judge S.K. Dubey, J., under section 23-B a composite order of refusing leave and" an order of eviction cannot be passed without framing two separate issues for consideration in two stages. Learned Single Judge K.L. Shrivastava, J., in Hiralal's case (supra) relied on a decision in Jumma v. Birja (
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
