Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 298 (CHH)

JOT KUNWAR BAI v. RAMHAURAM SAHU

2005-08-31

S.K.SINHA

body2005
ORAL ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.:- 1. Heard Shri Anoop Majumdar, counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision has been filed under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the impugned order dated 21-8-2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Rajnandgaon in Case No.5A/90 year 1999-2000. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who is shown to be the widow of late Samaru Lal Sahu, aged about 70 years, filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority u/s 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') pleading all the ingredients which are required under the law to be pleaded in an application for eviction u/s 23- A of the aforesaid Act. The Copy of the application is filed before this Court as Annexure A-2 4. The Rent Controlling Authority took cognizance in the matter and issued a notice to the respondent on which the respondent also caused his appearance before the said Authority. It appears that the respondent had filed his written statement and alongwith the written statement, he also filed a preliminary objection dated 16-5-2000, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure A-4. In this preliminary objection, the respondent has raised this ground that in fact, the petitioner is not the landlady of the rented premises, therefore, she is not entitled to prosecute the proceedings for eviction and this point regarding the status of the petitioner should be decided first and the proceedings should not be prosecuted before deciding this point. 5. After receiving the reply and preliminary objection of the respondent, the Rent Controlling Authority, dismissed the entire application of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has filed her application under the provisions of Section 12(1)(5) of the Act, therefore, this application would not be maintainable before the Rent Controlling Authority because according to the Authority, it was not having the jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed under the aforesaid sections. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and have also perused the records of the civil revision. 7. A bare perusal of the application filed before the Rent Controlling Authority would show that in fact, instead of writing section 23-A, the petitioner has written in the cause title as Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Act. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and have also perused the records of the civil revision. 7. A bare perusal of the application filed before the Rent Controlling Authority would show that in fact, instead of writing section 23-A, the petitioner has written in the cause title as Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Act. Though it was written like this, but the authority did not take any objection on such mention being made by the petitioner in her application before it in the preliminary stage of the proceedings and it directed for issuance of notice to the respondent and the written statement and preliminary objections were filed, but the respondent too has not taken this ground in his preliminary objection. After waiting for a long period and after entering into the proceedings of the case, the Authority on 21-8-2000, all of a sudden, took this ground and even without giving any opportunity to the applicant to make necessary amendment in the cause title and without perusing the contents of the petition filed before the authority, it straight way dismissed the petition holding it to be filed u/s 12(1)(5) of the Act. 8. In the opinion of this Court, such a view taken by the Rent Controlling Authority is not only erroneous but the same is against the settled principles of law. It is a settled principle of law that mere writing of provisions in the cause title of application will do nothing. The sum and substance of the application is to be seen and the reliefs claimed in the application are also to be seen for the purposes of deriving jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application. If the application contains all the ingredients of a particular section of Act in which the jurisdiction is vested with the court or authority then the court or authority will not give importance to the heading or the section quoted by the applicant in the title of the application but it shall proceed with the matter looking to the sum and substance of the application and the reliefs claimed therein. 9. 9. Even other wise also, if the Authority was of the opinion that such a wrong committed by the applicant was of a grave nature, then he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to correct the cause title of the petition and then only he should have taken any such action like dismissal of the petition as a whole on the ground that it has been filed under a particular section of law for which that authority is having no jurisdiction. Such action on the part of the authority shows that the authority has not applied its mind in the matter of the petitioner and her petition though filed u/s 23-A of the Act has been dismissed in a manner unknown to the law. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controlling Authority. The Rent Controlling Authority shall fix a date in the last week of Sept. 2005 and on the said date, he will call upon the petitioner to amend the petition accordingly and after taking amendment he will proceed to decide the petition, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the provisions of sub-section I of Section 23-D of the Act which provides for an early hearing as far as may be within six months of the order of granting leave to the tenant to contest the application. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 12. The Records of the Rent Controlling Authority shall be sent back forthwith alongwith a copy of this order. Revision Allowed.