1986 Supreme(MP) 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.L. Shrivastava, J.
Hiralal - Petitioner
Vs.
Vinayak - Respondent
C.R. No. 380 of 1984 (I)
Decided On : 06-08-1986

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S.23C(2) and 23 – A – application for leave to defend – disclosure of facts which need investigation is sufficient – composite order of eviction and refusal of leave – cannot be passed.

        Short Note

       This revision petition under Section 23 – E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the composite order, dated 4 – 2 – 1984 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Indore whereby the petitioner has been refused leave to contest the application. U/s 23 – A of the Act and the application for eviction has been allowed.

       2. Held: It is clear from the provision that while considering the question of grant of leave to contest the only test to be applied is whether the affidavit in support of the application seeking leave discloses facts which need investigation by evidence and trial. The stage for a full – fledged trial of the issues arising from the facts stated in the affidavit is to be reached at a later stage of the litigation.

       3. In the decision in C.D. Korpal's case (AIR 1982 SC 1455) it has been held that where the ground of bonafide requirement is disputed by the tenant, leave to contest should be granted. In Juman's case (1986 M.P.R.C.J. 22), it has been pointed out that a composite order relating to leave and eviction is not contemplated under law.

       4. In the light of the foregoing discussion I am of the view that the learned Rent Controlling Authority erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for leave to contest the non – applicant's application seeking eviction and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. AIR 1982 SC 1455 and 1986 MPRCJ 22 relied on.