ORDER

1. This order shall dispose of civil revision nos. 241/2020, 242/2020, 243/2020, 244/2020, 245/2020, 246/2020, 247/2020 and 248/2020. All these civil revisions are heard and decided finally with the consent of parties by common order.

2 . Vide impugned order dated 30.7.2020 learned Rent Controlling Authority, Narsinghpur, has while dismissing the application under section 23-C of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") passed order of eviction on the basis of deemed admissions even without discussing the averments made in the application for eviction and even without recording exparte evidence.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned RCA has on technical grounds erred in dismissing the application under section 23-C of the Act whereas, the petitioner has already filed written statement on record. He further submits that even after dismissing the application under section 23-C of the Act, learned RCA had no jurisdiction to pass order of eviction even without considering the merits and demerits of the case of respondent/landlord and he prays for allowing the civil revision.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that the civil revision deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, it is clear that the learned RCA has vide impugned order dated 30.7.2020 dismissed the application under section 23-C of the Act filed by the petitioner/tenant and thereafter even without considering the averments of the application for eviction and even without recording any satisfaction about existence of ground of eviction, has passed order of eviction. The similar question arose before the Patna High Court in the case of Madan Sah vs. Laleshwar Choubey and another AIR 1994 PAT 149 in which coordinate bench of Patna High Court has held as under:-

"11. Even after the deemed admission by the tenant of the statement made by the landlord in suit for eviction the duty is cast on the Court to see whether on the basis of the admitted facts the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction in law. The statements deemed to have been admitted by the court may not be sufficient to prove the requirement of section 11(1)(c) or (e) of the Act and in such case the court is not bound to pass an order for eviction. In many cases the admitted statements may not disclose a cause of action at all or the facts stated therein may show that the suit is not maintainable on other ground. In a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity even if the court finds that the admitted facts prove the reasonable and bona fide need of the plaintiff and he is entitled to a decree for eviction on the said ground, it cannot pass an order for eviction unless he considers the question of partial eviction as required by proviso to section 11(1)(c) of the Act. In my view, after the deemed admission of the statement made in the plaint by the tenant the plaintifflandlord is not entitled to an order of eviction ipso facto, the court has to keep the law in mind and to decide as to whether on the admitted facts the plaintiff is entitled to an order for eviction in terms of section 11(1)(c) of the Act. After the deemed admission of the statements of the plaint by the tenant, the function of the Court is not a mechanical one in the sense that without considering the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order for eviction or not in law, it can pass an order of eviction only on the basis of deemed admission.

12. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the Court below has passed the order for eviction only on the ground that as the petitioner did not appear after service of summons on him, he will be deemed to have admitted the claim of eviction. The Court below has not considered the question as to whether on the basis of the deemed admission of the stat