Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 214 (CHH)

GANGARAM v. MEHATLAL DHEEVAR

2011-07-04

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2011
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. In this revision under Section 23 (E) of the CG Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act') the applicants/tenants have called in question the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mahasamund. 2. Non-applicant Mehatlal moved an application under Section 23-A of the Act for the applicants' eviction from the house situated at Ward No.20 bearing Khasra No.1662/1 area 2009 sq. ft. on the ground that he is a retired Government servant and is the owner/Bhoomiswami of the land which is bonafidely needed for his own residence and he has no other accommodation for his residence. 3. From the order sheet of the Rent Controlling Authority, it appears that after receipt of summons the applicants appeared before the Rent Controlling Authority on 13-9-2010 and sought time to file reply. The matter was thereafter fixed for filing of reply on 29-9-2010, 23-10-2010, 25-10-2010 and thereafter on 30-10-2010. The order sheet of 30-10-2010 records that counsel for both the parties are present, however" notices in prescribed form have not been sent to the applicants/ tenants, therefore, the said notices be issued. The matter was again taken up on 15-11-2010 and thereafter on 22-11-2010. The applicants filed their reply on 24-11-20 10, however, on the said date the Presiding Officer was not available and the matter was fixed for 26-11-2010. 4. The Rent Controlling Authority did not bother to proceed under Section 23-C in spite of the fact that the tenants had not moved any application seeking leave to defend but had straightway filed their written statement. Be that as it may, the order sheet of 26-11-2010 records that the matter be placed for recording evidence of both the parties on 6-12-2010. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was busy in meeting and, therefore, the matter was fixed for 14-12-2010 for recording evidence of the parties. 5. In the order sheet of 14-12-2010, learned Rent Controlling Authority has recorded some statement presumably made by tenant Gangaram, however, the statement has not been recorded in separate order sheet or in a deposition sheet and in any case, statement of the landlord has not even been reduced into writing. 5. In the order sheet of 14-12-2010, learned Rent Controlling Authority has recorded some statement presumably made by tenant Gangaram, however, the statement has not been recorded in separate order sheet or in a deposition sheet and in any case, statement of the landlord has not even been reduced into writing. At the end of this order sheet, it is mentioned that the matter was fixed for recording of evidence, therefore, if the parties so desire, they may produce evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments and order. On the next date i.e. on 27-12-2010 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted for 29-12-2010 when the parties submitted their written statement and the final order was passed on 7-1-2011. 6. From the above narration of the contents of the entire order sheets recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, it would appear that the procedure adopted by the Rent Controlling Authority is not only faulty but dehors the provisions contained in Sections 23-C and 23-D of the Act inasmuch as firstly no application seeking leave to defend was moved by the tenants and secondly, when such default was made, the Rent Controlling Authority, without passing any order in this regard, granted time to the tenants for filing written statement and ultimately, written statement was taken on record impliedly suggesting that leave to defend was granted. 7. The Rent Controlling Authority thereafter proceeded to record statements of the tenants/applicants herein in the order sheet and not in the deposition sheet, that too without recording any statement of landlord. The order of eviction was thus passed without recording evidence of any of the parties. 8. The manner in which the Rent Controlling Authority has heard and disposed of the eviction petition is dehors the provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act. 9. The impugned order thus deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision is thus allowed. 10. The applicants/tenants shall submit an application for leave to defend within 15 days from the date of appearance to be granted by this Court and thereafter the Rent Controlling Authority shall decide the application seeing leave to defend, if filed by the applicants/tenants. After granting leave to defend, if any, the Rent Controlling Authority shall proceed to record evidence of the parties and thereafter shall decide the matter in accordance with law. 11. After granting leave to defend, if any, the Rent Controlling Authority shall proceed to record evidence of the parties and thereafter shall decide the matter in accordance with law. 11. Both the parties shall remain present before the Rent Controlling Authority on 25th July, 2011. 12. Record of the Rent Controlling Authority be sent back immediately. Revision Allowed.