1984 Supreme(MP) 381

K. K. Varma, J.
Mata Din v. Ashok Kumar.
C. R. No. 163 of 1984 (G); Decided on 24-7-1984.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (M.P.)-Ss. 2 & 8-nature of the amendments made by the amending Act.

       (2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961-Ss. 23-A, 23-B and 23-C-effect of the newly added sections.

       The long title introduced by section 2 of the amending Act enumerates the expeditious trial of eviction cases on the ground of "bona fide requirement" of landlord as one of the objects of the Act. Section 8 of the Amending Act inserted a new chapter, containing section 23-A to 23-C.

       The tenant has a very valuable right to make an application under section 23-C (1) to the Rent Controlling Authority to obtain leave to contest the landlord's prayer for eviction. In fact, the tenant is without any defence and left with no remedy against eviction if he omits to apply for or refused leave by R.C.A. The safeguards assured by the legislature in order to strike the expeditious and summary disposal of the landlord's application for eviction, and equally important consideration of affording a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to obtain leave of the court, and on grant of the leave to contest the landlord's application for eviction, are as follows :-

       (i) Signing and verification of the landlord's application in the manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the C.P.C.

       (ii) Issuance of a summons in the form specified in the second schedule, along with a copy of the landlord's application.

       (iii) Service of summons along with the above mentioned copy of the application on the tenant in accordance with the provisions of Order V of C. P. C.

       (iv) Proper opportunity and sufficient time for applying to R. C. A. for leave to contest the landlord's application, should be given. [Para 17

       (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.)-Ss. 23-A to 23-Csummons not served in the manner prescribed by law-no adverse presumption to be drawn against the tenant.

       (4) Civil P.C., 1908-O. V, Rr. 16, 17 and 18-provisions not complied with-service is defective and is no service in the eyes of law.

       The service of summons was effected without fully complying with Order V, rules 16 and 18 and it was not vouched for by the serving officer on oath, but it was used by the learned R.C.A. without examining the serving officer on oath, as required by Order V, Rule 19. Thus the service of summons on the defendant was not in accordance with law.

       In face of such a defective service the tenant could not be said to have omitted to apply for leave to contest the landlord's application within 15 days of service of summons on him, and no presumption u/s 23-C (1) could have been lawfully down against him. [Para 32

       (5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-S.23-E-R.C.A. disregarding the sefeguards to the tenant provided by law-not following strictly the mandatory provisions of Order V, C.P.C.-order is interferable by the High Court. [Para 34