Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 713 (MP)

Ganubai v. Bhagwati Charan Daharwal

1992-11-11

K.L.ISSRANI

body1992
JUDGMENT The present revision petition is under section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, against the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, passed on 7.8.1991 in Eviction Case No.64/90(7) of the year 1990-91, refusing to entertain the application for ejectment on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. The suit was originally presented under section 12(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act,1983, in the Court of 9th Civil Judge Class II, Raipur, being Civil Suit No. 75-A of 1987 but the plaint of the suit was returned on 7.9.1989 under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being presented before the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur on account of aforesaid 1983 amendment in the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, as under section l1-A of the above Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the case of a widow. On 12.9.1989, the same case was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, as it is. But again as a result of change in law, the said plaint/application was transferred to the Civil Court for trial in accordance with the provisions of law. On the death of the original plaintiff Phoolchand, his widow Gangubai was brought on record along with other legal representatives. At this stage, it was found by the Court that the case was triable by the Rent Controlling Authority, the plaintiff being the widow. Hence, the case was ordered to be tried by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur. During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiff Gangubai expired and her legal representatives were brought on record. Amongst them Sitabai is also a widow. The Rent Controlling Authority held that the suit can well be tried by it Sitabai being widow but has held that since it contains the prayer not only for an adjournment but also for recovery of rent and electricity bills, it has jurisdiction to try the same. The case was accordingly closed and consigned to record room. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that having held that the ejectment application is still triable by the Rent Controlling Authority the said Court should not have dismissed the application as a whole but should have tried the prayer clause which fell into its jurisdiction. The case was accordingly closed and consigned to record room. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that having held that the ejectment application is still triable by the Rent Controlling Authority the said Court should not have dismissed the application as a whole but should have tried the prayer clause which fell into its jurisdiction. What I find from the application under section 23-A(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, that though all these prayers are there but ultimately in paragraph No.13 of the application at page 15 of the Paper Book, the prayer is for grant of an order against the non-applicant for ejectment and recovery of possession in respect of the suit premises in favour of the applicants with entire costs of the proceedings and also any other just and proper order in the circumstances of this case. This goes to show that the applicants had not insisted upon recovery of arrears of rent and also the electricity charges. Admittedly, the Rent Controlling Authority has jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment and possession under section 23-A(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. If the Rent Controlling Authority found that it cannot grant entire relief, it ought not have dismissed the whole petition of the applicant. Before this Court also, all the applicants pray that they will insist only on the ground of ejectment, before the Rent Controlling Authority. For separate claims, they will file separate suits, if so advised. For directions for deposit of rent, during the pendency of the application for ejectment, the Rent Controlling Authority has powers under section 23-H of the Act to pass suitable orders. But in any case, the order dismissing the whole petition is illegal and uncalled for. It is accordingly set aside. The applicants are directed to appear before Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, on 7.12.1992. The Rent Controlling Authority should proceed with the application further according to law after giving due notice to the non-applicants. Record of the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, be returned immediately before the date fixed. With the above observations, this revision is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.