IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 11 OF JULY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 430 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

OMRAJ BULBUL S/O LATE SHRI R.L. BULBUL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX SERVICE MEN 2859 SHARDA COLONY NEW KANCHANPUR ADHARTAL TEHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P.

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SUSHIL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SHANKER LAL SONI S/O SHRI MOHAN LAL SONI B-2 KANCHAN VIHAR VIJAY NAGAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P.

2. RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY /SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER R/O ADHARTAL, DISTT.

JABALPUR (M.P.)

.....RESPONDENTS (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT 1 THOUGH SERVED )

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/landlord challenging the final order dated 18.07.2022 (Annexure P/4) passed by Rent Controlling Authority and SDO, Adhartal, District Jabalpur in Revenue case no.005/A-90/2021-2022 whereby at the stage of final arguments, learned RCA has dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Section 23-A(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on the ground of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT pendency of civil suit filed by the respondent 1/tenant for permanent injunction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent 1-Shanker Lal Soni had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner seeking relief to the effect that the petitioner be restrained from dispossessing the respondent 1 from the suit premises without due process of law, which though on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 was pending, but the same has been dismissed later on 01.03.2023 under Order 7 rule 11(d) CPC. He further submits that institution of suit for permanent injunction by tenant, does not bar filing of the application under Section 23- A(a) of the Act and even during pendency of the said civil suit for injunction, the proceedings under the Act cannot be stayed. Accordingly, he submits that the civil revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order 18.07.2022 deserves to be set aside with the further direction to learned RCA to decide the application under Section 23-A(a) of the Act afresh on the basis of material available on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. From the order sheets of the RCA filed before this Court, it is apparent that after recording evidence of the petitioner/landlord, the learned RCA fixed the case for evidence of the respondent 1/tenant but for want of adducing evidence, right of the respondent 1/tenant was closed on 14.03.2021 and the case was fixed for final arguments for 29.03.2022 but thereafter, learned RCA vide impugned order dated 18.07.2022 has without deciding the application under Section 23-A(a) of the Act on merits, dismissed the same on the ground of pendency of civil suit for injunction filed by the respondent 1/tenant.

5. There is no provision under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 or under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which bars filing of the application under Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT Section 23-A(a) of the Act during pendency of civil suit for permanent injunction by the tenant. From the record, it is also apparent that such prayer for dismissal of application, was not even made by the respondent 1/tenant.

6. As such, in my considered opinion, learned RCA has committed grave illegality in dismissing the application under Section 23-A(a) of the Act filed by the petitioner/landlord on the ground of pendency of civil suit for permanent injunction filed by tenant.

7. Resultantly, the civil revision succeeds and is hereby allowed and by setting aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by RCA/SDO, Adhartal, District Jabalpur the matter is remanded to the RCA to decide the application under Section 23-A(a) of the Act filed in Revenue case no.005/A-

90/2021-2022 on its own merits.

8. From th