1988 Supreme(MP) 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V.D. Gyani, J.
Shardabai (Smt.) – Petitioner
Versus
Shankar Rao – Non-petitioner
C.R. No. 135 of 1987 (I)
Decided On : 17-02-1988

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – A and 23 – J – certificates as to retirement and pension filed – landlord is prima facie entitled to invoke jurisdiction of R.C.A.

        Short Note

       1. This is a revision under S. 23 (E) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act against the order dated 21 – 5 – 1987, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on an application dated 12 – 5 – 1987, made by the tenant – petitioner.

       Held: The petitioner alongwith his application dated 10 – 12 – 1986, has filed a photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Departmental Head of the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. As per this certificate, the petitioner had retired from Government service on 31st July, 1976. There is yet another – document on record, a memo addressed to Accountant General of the State by Under Secretary of the General Administration Department, dated 6th April, 1976, which relates to the petitioner's pension. The documents coupled with the admissions made by the petitioner in her application, written statement affidavit and the reply to the notice, go to show that the petitioner has exclusively made out a prima – facie case of being a retired Govt. servant. Thus, entitling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority.

       2. Shri Samvatsar, learned counsel, however, contended that petitioner has yet to prove his case of being a retired Govt. Servant. According to him there is no presumption as regards the petitioner's bona fide requirement. He has to make out his case before he claimed an order of eviction against the petitioner. So far as presumption is concerned, it is not necessary in this revision petition to go into this question, nor does it arise at this moment the question is whether the petitioner has made out his case for invoking the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority, which as discussed above, has been abundantly made out by the respondent. It is, however, open to the petitioner to adduce evidence, she chooses, in rebuttal. No error as such is committed by the Authority in calling upon the petitioner to adduce evidence.

       3. The petitioner is free to place any such material which she deems fit, so as to dislodge the fact of those pieces of evidence which have been discussed above, it would be wrong to say that the respondent has not made out a prima facie case for invoking the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority. 1979 JLJ 720 relied on. 1987 MPRCJ 147, 1987 MPRCJ 44 and 1986 MPRCJ 147 referred to. Revision dismissed.