IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA ON THE 10^th OF MAY, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 599 of 2022 Between:-

1. PRADEEP KUMAR MANGAL S/O SHRI A.K.

MANGAL , AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O S-160 NEAR DURGA TEMPLE INDRAPURI BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. USHA MANGAL W/O SHRI A.K. MANGAL , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O S-160 NEAR DURGA TEMPLE INDRAPURI BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI GHANSHYAM SHRMA, LEARNED ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) AND RENT CONTROLLING OFFICER GOVINDPURA CIRCLE BHOPAL OLD RTO OFFICE KOHEFIZA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. D.G.M. CITY EAST INDIA OFFICE M.P.M.K.V.V.

CO. LTD. GOVINDPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. YESHRAJ RAY S/O SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA RAY , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL R/O- A-14, DEEP MOHINI AYODHYA HABITTE, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SWATANTRA PANDEY, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER.

SHRI VED PRAKASH TIWRI, LEARNED ADVOCATE.)

This petition is coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are questioning the validity and propriety of the order dated 29/10/2021 passed in order No.502/Reader/AVa.Go./2021 passed by respondent No.2, 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owner of Shop No.1 Plot No.110 situated at Sector, Near Bima Hospital, Indrapuri, Bhopal. The respondent No.4 was interested to take the said property on rent for running the restaurant, therefore, the rent agreement (Annexure P/1) was executed between the parties and the said premises was given on a rent to the respondent No.4 for the period of 11 months. On 19/07/2021, the respondent No.4 has filed an application under Section 35 of the Rent Control Act before the respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioners are unnecessarily harassing him and they stopped the electricity supply and water supply in the rent premises are and prayed for restoration of same. On the basis of said application, Rent Controlling Authority registered the case No. 02/RCA/2021-22 and pleased to issue notice (Annexure P/2) to the petitioners. On 22/09/2021, the Rent Controlling Authority has pleased to proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No.4 on the ground that he was not present at the time, when the case was called. After some time, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for restoration of the case before Rent Controlling Authority, however, the said application is still pending and proceeding is going on. Thereafter, on 29/10/2021 (Annexure P/4), the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order and directed to the respondent No.3 to restore the electricity connection in the premises of respondent No.4 on the ground that the learned Civil court has passed the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed behind the back of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the proceedings for restoration of the case is pending before the respondent No.2, in that proceeding the impugned order is not passed. It is further submitted that impugned order dated 29/10/2021 has passed by respondent No.2 in separate letter, which belongs to him, which clearly indicates that the respondent No.2 is under the influence of respondent No.4 and they have given extra benefit to the respondent No.4. Although on 27/07/2021(Annexure P/5), learned Civil Judge has passed the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No.4, in which there is no direction that the electricity supply should be restored and said injunction was granted for the period of si