1980 Supreme(MP) 221

R. K. Vijaywargiya, J.
Brajvallabh v. Ibrahim.
C. Revn. No. 278 of 1980 (I); Decided on 25-8-1980.

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 18 (3) -- order for deLi"Very of possession or compensation under -- whether may be passed without enquiry.

        The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are as follows: A decree for eviction was passed in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicant on the ground that the applicant required the suit nond`residential accommodation for reconstruction which cannot be made without the eviction of the non-applicant. By the decree the applicant was directed to deLi"Ver possession of the shop to the non-applicant by 1-10-73 after reconstructing the same As the applicant did not hand over possession as directed in the decree the non-applicant submitted an application under section 18 (3) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act to the trial Court praying that the applicant be directed to deLi"Ver possession of the shop to him. The applicant alleged that he applied to the Municipal council for sanction of the plan for reconstruction of the shop but the plan was not sanctioned by the municipal council. He also preferred appeal against the order of the municipal council before the Collector and as the plan has not been sanctioned he could not make reconstruction and deLi"Ver possession to the non-applicant as decreed by the trial Court. Without recording any evidence the trial Court by order dated 4-2-76 held that as the shop was not reconstructed the possession there of cannot be given to the non-applicant. Instead the Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 200 as compensation to the non-applicant. The non-applicant preferred appeal against the order of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has reversed the order of the trial Court and directed the applicant to deLi"Ver possession of vacant land to the non-applicant. The applicant has assailed the order of the Court below in this revision.

        Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this revision deserves to be allowed. The lower appellate Court criticised the order of the trial Court on the ground that without recording any evidence the trial Court awarded Rs. 200 as compensation to the non-applicant. The lower appellate Court has also committed the same error. If the Court below was of the opinion that proper order could be passed after recording evidence on the question raised by the parties it committed an error in reversing the order and directing the applicant to deLi"Ver possession of the vacant land to the non-applicant. The lower appellate Court ought to have remitted the matter to the trial Court for passing a proper order after recording evidence. In the circumstances the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. The matter has to be remitted to the Court for passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Revision allowed. Case remanded.