1986 Supreme(MP) 399

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V.D. GYANI, J.
Shyamrao - Applicant
Versus
Babulal - Non-Applicant
C.R. No. 1041 of 1984 (I)
Decided On : 19-03-1986

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – A and 23 – C – case of eviction – should not be mixed up with application for leave to defend.

       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – Sub – divisional Officer – cannot act under this provision – only Rent Controlling Authority is competent to pass any order.

        Short Note

       1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has urged only one ground, namely, that a composite order, as has been passed. by the Rent Controlling Authority, is liable to be quashed , in view of the fact that leave to defend and the order for eviction are two distinct judicial processes of law and should not be combined – together, as bas been done in the instant case.

       2. Shri Dube, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has on the other hand submitted that apparently and indisputably the application for leave to defend the suit, little realising the law on the point and the consequences that leave to defend was filed much after the statutory period, i.e. on 11 – 4 – 84, whereas under S.2 – G of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the application for leave to defend should have been filed by 15 – 2 – 1984. But till 4 – 4 – 1984, no such application was filed by the petitioner. It Was only on 11 – 4 – 1984 that the application was moved, It is to be noted with regret that on 16 – 2 – 1984 when the learned counsel appeared for the defendant – tenant, he prayed for time to move an application for would ensue. Thereafter on 8 – 3 – 1984 there was strike. On 19 – 3 – 84 the presiding officer was out and on 4 – 4 – 84 an order for recording ex – parte evidence was passed. On 12 – 4 – 1984 the presiding officer was on leave and on 11 – 4 – 84 an application was moved and the final order passed on 31 – 8 – 84.

       3. Shri Bhagwansingh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in jumma v. Birja (1986 M.P.R.C.J. Note No. 22) and in Rajmdrakumar Sethi v. Madanlal Gupta (1985 M.P.R.C.J. Note No. 142) The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted and is accordingly accepted.

       Held: Rent Controlling Authority while considering an application for leave to defend should not mix up a case with an order of eviction, as it is likely to result in prejudice and injustice to any tenant. At any rate, the tenant can always make grievance about making such a composite order. It is to be noted that the impugned order has been passed not by the Rent Controlling Authority but by the sub – Divisional Officer, as is revealed from the certified copy of the order filed along with this petition. Even in the title, the Court as mentioned is that of the Sub – Divisional Officer. Needless to add that a Sub – Divisional Officer as such has no jurisdiction under the law to entertain a petition under S.23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is one thing that a Sub – Divisional Officer may have been appointed a Rent Controlling Authority, but it is expected of the Authority while exercising jurisdiction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act to mention and describe It self not as a Sub – Divisional Officer but as Rent Controlling Authority. Jurisdiction ,conferred under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act refers to the Rent Controlling Authority. At every stage in the impugned order itself, the designation mentioned is as Sub – Divisional Officer and one is at pains to find whether the Rent Controlling Authority was exercising powers of the Sub – Divisional Officer. Such errors should be avoided while passing orders under the Accommodation Control Act. They should realise the importance of their own jurisdiction, designation and conferment of powers under a particular statute, lest on this count itself the orders may be challenged. 1986 MPRCJ SN. 22 and 1985 MPRCJ SN 142 referred to. Revision allowed.