Appeal No 1769 of 1981 From the Judgment and Order dated 21101980 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln
No 952 of 1980
VA Bobde SD Mudliar and AG Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant
UR Lalit AK Sanghi Prakash Khanzodi and Ravinder Bana for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
The story behind this appeal though not very relevant reveals interesting facts
One NH Ray of Calcutta either abandoned or disappeared or died since about 1929 and his house being the premises in dispute in Nagpur lay abandoned and his heirs were not known 404 letters written by authorities in Nagpur and by the tenants in Nagpur to the address NH Ray Calcutta  naturally remained unanswered
It is alleged that a notice of sale of the premises in question was given in the name of one Tapan Roy in the local newspaper
But one Bratindranath Roy de scribing himself to be the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the heirs of late NH Ray is alleged to have sold the premises in question
The Southern portion was sold to the respondent DV Hingwe and one M Lapalikar became the allottee of the premises in question in 1960
He wants to stay on in the premises
The alleged transferee or alienee of the property from the alleged heirs of NH Ray fights this appeal in this Court after the allotment has been cancelled by the House Allotment Officer in favour of the appellant Lapalikar
But in this appeal this Court is concerned with a very short question whether the appellant was granted allotment as a government employee or evictee in terms of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order 1949 hereinafter called the said Rent Control Order 
In order to appreciate the point it is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant previously was residing in another house since 1941 at House No 546 situated at Dhan toli area at Nagpur
The landlord of the appellant sued for permission to evict the appellant from the said premises on the grounds of bona fide need of the landlord
Such permis sion was granted against the appellant in respect of the said house on 23rd May 1955
The appeal in respect of the same was dismissed by an order dated 26th November 1955
Since then the appellant had been evicted from the premises which was in his occupation and has no residential accommo dation of his own
He was a Central Government employee being an employee of the Post and Telegraph De partment of the Government of India
He made an application for allotment of the premises in dispute namely 4061 in Nagpur under clause 24 A under the said Control Order
It is necessary in order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal to refer to certain documents in this connec tion
On or about 25th January 1960 Shri Lapalikar the appellant herein wrote a letter to the Additional Collec tor Nagpur
In the said letter the appellant described himself after stating his name Clerk PMG Office Nagpur and a registered evictee 
In the said letter the appellant stated that one Dr Shirali occupied the premises in ques tion which belonged to one Shri NH Ray
As Shri Shirali proposed to vacate the premises in near future he had agreed to let it out to the appellant in case permission was granted to him to that effect
He therefore prayed that the said house might be allotted to him in his own name in view of his difficulties and priorities
This document appears in the Paper Book as a copy 
Thereafter on 27th January 405 1960 the Additional Deputy Collector Nagpur communicated to the appellant at PMG Office Nagpur that the premises in question has been provisionally allotted to you under clause 24 A of the CP  Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1948 subject to further orders by the Addi tional Deputy Collector Nagpur 
This is also a copy which appears in the Paper Book and which was produced by the appellant
It is necessary to emphasise this aspect of the production by the appellant in order to consider a conten tion urged by Shri Lalit the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant
On the same date intimation was given to one Shri NH Ray Calcutta  without any further address and intimation was sent that information had been received that the said house belonging to Shri NH Ray would fall vacant on or about 15th January
He was further informed that the house was provisionally allotted to the appellant PMG Office Nagpur
He was informed that in case he had objection he might submit the same within a fortnight thereof
This is also a copy produced by the appellant
Though not relevant for the present purpose it makes interesting reading as to how Government functioned in the past
It is not known whether it has improved since then
It was addressed to one Shri NH Ray Calcutta 
How a letter addressed in such manner could ever be conceived by anybody to be received by the addressee is beyond imagination
It informs on 27th January 1960 that the house would fall vacant on 15th instant 
What happened to that letter no one knows
There is a copy of Misc
Document No 33a71 6 A of 59 60
This is regarding the allotment of the premises in question
The Order sheet notes that this was an application from Dr Shirali who proposed to let out the house belonging to Shri NH Ray of Calcutta
She had proposed to let it out to the applicant employee of the PMG Office
Further it was stated that he is an evictee
This sentence was underlined
The said document indicated that the officer concerned had directed registration of the case and for issue of a provi sional order of allotment and one copy to be addressed to the landlord on address given another copy pasted on the house
The copy of the landlord was addressed to NH Ray Calcutta which was naturally returned to the sender for full address
The order sheet further recorded that on 16th February 1960 Dr Shirali had informed that she had handed over the possession to the appellant as per orders of allot ment
The order further recorded that no objection was received from landlord as invited
To the same effect there is a copy of a letter from Dr Shirali to the Additional Collector Nagpur
A copy of the certified copy of Record Room Register was also produced by the appellant
The same reads as follows 406 Application No 361579 Office of the Collector Nagpur Name of the Register Rent Controller Nagpur
Certified copy of Record Room Register Register No 10 Form C  Record from register for Kuliyat Papers Rule 6
Serial No of major Name of Name of case Date of Date of number and minor case in with date deposit elimi in head
Officer and purport of case nation Record regis of final or in re with Room ter
der and abs cord initia Register tract of the room
ls of order passed elimi in appeal or nating in revision officer 1220 A 716 A AG Applicant 5860 A file 3359 60 Nagpur Shri MM destro Lapalikar yed Subject Allotment of house
Order 16260 provisio nal allot ment con firmed
Sdillegible 4267 True translation Advocate
On 10th September 1979 there was an application by one Shri Mude who is one of the respondents in this appeal stating that the appellant was a government servant and had retired two years back and should vacate the premises in dispute
Written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant wherein he stated after dealing with the facts that the appellant was previously staying at premises No 4061 standing on plot number Sheet No 20 B which was in occu pation of one Dr Shirali with whom the appellant had inti mate relations and who was knowing the evictee position of the appellant herein non applicant therein stated that the appellant came to know from them that they wanted to shift to some other place for their family reasons
So both of them had approached the Rent Controller Nagpur and submit ted an application and thereafter the order had been made
The contention of the appellant was that he was given the premises in question as an evictee though his description included that he was a government servant
The short question that fails for consideration in this case is whether the summary procedure contemplated by clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order was applicable for obtaining possession from the appellant
The appellant retired indisputably on 1st May 1978 and the House Allot ment Officer was 407 moved by an application filed by one Vijay Mude the re spondent herein for taking action under clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order
The Additional District Magistrate and House Allotment Officer Nagpur passed an order dated 13th March 1980 and ordered the appellant to vacate the premises in question within one month from the date of the order
The said order had been challenged by the appellant by a petition filed beforethe High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court by its judgment and order upheld the eviction order
The appellant challenged the same in this Court and special leave was sought for
In the meantime the appellant was dispossessed by virtue of the order of eviction which was confirmed by the High Court
In the Special Leave Peti tion on 16th December 1980 this Court had directed resto ration of possession and had further directed the House Allotment Officer to make a report
The House Allotment Officer has made a report
Special Leave was granted and this appeal was expedited
The documents annexed to the report of the House Allotment Officer are the same which have been noticed herein
Clause 22 of the said Rent Control Order defines displaced person  and evicted person  is defined under sub clause 2 a of clause 2 of the said Order
There is no dispute that the appellant is and was an evicted person
Clause 22 of the Order deals with the collection of informa tion and letting of accommodation
Clause 23 is important and the relevant part of the same is as follows 23
1 On receipt of the intimation in accordance with clause 22 the Collector may within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said intimation order the landlord to let the vacant house to any person holding an office of profit under the Union or State Government or to any person holding a post under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board or to a displaced person or to an evicted person and thereupon notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary the landlord shall let the house to such person and place him in posses sion thereof immediately if it is vacant or as soon as it becomes vacant
Clauses 24 24 A and 24 B deal with the power to allot the house in the manner indicated in those clauses of the Order
Clause 25 is relevant and is as follows
The tenancy of any person holding an office of profit under the Union or State Government or to any person holding a post under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and placed in 408 possession of a house by an order under clause 23 or 24 A shall terminate on the date of the transfer of or gram of leave other than casual leave to such person or on the date from which such person ceases to hold an office of profit under the Union or State Government or ceases to hold a post under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board as the case may be and the said person shall vacate the said house within seven days of such date and the landlord and tenant shall give the intima tion prescribed in clause 22 to the Collector in respect of such house Provided that on sufficient cause being shown to the Collector he may in his discretion extend the tenancy by a period not exceeding four months
The position is that the appellant is both an evictee as well as a Government servant of the category contemplated under clause 23
The fact that the appellant is an evictee is indisputable
The fact that the appellant is a government servant of the category contemplated by clause 23 is also indisputable
The fact that the appellant has retired from government service is also indisputable
The question is whether he could be evicted under the summary procedure contemplated under clause 25
This will depend upon in what category or in what capacity the appellant was allotted the premises in question
There is no evidence of the applica tion made by the appellant for the allotment
No copy is available in the records and no copy was produced by the appellant
The appellant has produced other documents rele vant to this issue as we have indicated hereinbefore
Shri Bobde appearing for the appellant contends in this appeal that the appellant was allotted the premises in question as an evictee
He draws our attention to the documents produced as we have indicated before
He submits that the appellant was allotted the premises in question as an evictee
He was not entitled to be evicted on his retirement
On the other hand Shri Lalit advocate for the trans feree of the landlord as supported by Shri Bandra advocate for the claimant respondent submits that from the order it was apparant that the premises in question was given as a government servant
The priority in which the appellant was classed was because of his being a government servant
He drew our attention to the relevant clauses of the Order
On the scheme of the different clauses we are of the opinion that it was only when a person was granted an allotment as a government servant then and then only can clause 25 be invoked for his eviction
In other cases clause 13 will be relevant
The summary procedure of clause 25 could only be available in case of recovery of possession given to a person as a government servant on his retirement
Indeed the provisions are peculiar
Even if a government servant goes on earned leave or is transferred even then he becomes disentitled to remain in possession of the premises in 409 question and would be liable to be evicted by virtue of clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order
Being drastic in nature therefore one who seeks allottee s eviction has to establish that the allotment to thee person whose eviction is sought was made in the capacity contemplated under clause 25
Shri Lalit contends strenuously that the appellant had the chance to produce all the documents before the Allotment Officer but he failed to do so
He had another chance to produce the relevant documents after the Order of this Court when the matter was remanded back for fresh enquiry
He failed to do so
Shri Lalit contends that on this ground adverse presumption should be drawn against the appellant as he has produced other documents in his custody
It is undis puted that the original records are not available and are destroyed
There is nothing on evidence to show that the copy of the original application of allotment made by the appellant was still in possession of the appellant
That is not in evidence
It was submitted that he was given an opportunity to give evidence and as such subject himself to cross examination when there was an enquiry ordered by the Enquiry Officer directed by this Court but the appellant failed to avail of that opportunity
Therefore adverse presumptionwas to be drawn against him
It is not however possible to draw such adverse presumption in the facts and circumstances of this case
No ground has been made for compelling the appellant to step into the witness box and subject himself to cross examination
It cannot be presumed simply because some documents or some copies of some docu ments were in the custody of the party all other documents or all copies relevant for the issue would be in the custody of that person and nonproduction of such documents cannot expose him open to adverse presumption
Such argument cannot be sustained
It was submitted before the High Court that clause 25 applies only to the premises which were let out to a person under clauses 23 and 24 A of the Control Order and where the allottee was an evictee clause 25 had no application
The High Court was of the view that it is clear from clause 25 that two conditions were required to be fulfilled before the said clause could be applied namely i the allottee must be holding an office of profit under the Union or the State Government or holding a post under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and ii that he was placed in possession of the premises under clause 23 or clause 24 A
But it is clear that clause 25 read as a whole indicates clearly that the person against whom the clause would be operative must be an allottee of the premises allotted to him in his capac ity as a government servant and was placed in possession of the premises as a government servant
We are unable to accept the High Court s view that the clause does not make any exception in case of a government servant who happened to be an evictee
These clauses deal with three independent categories of persons and the summary procedure on proper construction of clause 25 was applicable only where allot ment is given to a tenant as a government servant
The High Court was of the view that even if a government servant happened to be the evictee on his 410 retirement clause 25 would operate
We are unable to sus tain this reasoning
If allotment was made to an allottee in his capacity as an evictee then clause 25 in our opinion on a proper construction of the said clause would have no application
Further on a construction of the various docu ments and the evidence adduced in this appeal under these proceedings it is clear that allotment was given to the appellant as an evictee who happened to be at the relevant time a government servant
Therefore on his retirement from the government service he did not cease to be an evictee and did not come within the mischief of clause 25 of the said Control Order
We are further of the opinion that even if allotment is made to a person who is both an evictee as well as a govern ment servant then if one of the grounds of the order namely that he was a government servant ceases to exist on retire ment the other reason operates ie he was an evictee and still continues to be an evictee then the allotment would continue
See in this connection the observations of this Court in The State of Maharashtra  Anr
vs BK Takkamore  Ors  Where this Court reiterated that an administrative or quasi judicial order based on several grounds all taken together could not be sustained if it was found that some of the grounds were non existent or irrelevant and there was nothing to show that the authority would have passed the Order on the basis of the other rele vant and existing grounds
But an Order based on several grounds some of which were found to be non existent or irrelevant could be sustained if the Court was satisfied that the authority would have passed the Order on the basis of other relevant and existing grounds and the exclusion of the irrelevant or non existent grounds would not have af fected the ultimate opinion or decision
In this case even if it be held that it cannot be conclusively determined that the order of allotment was made in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the appellant was an evictee but it was made also on the ground that the appellant was a government servant and after his retirement the other ground namely the allottee still being an evictee remained valid it can be sustained
In the premises we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error and the appeal must be allowed
We however make it quite clear that this order will not preju dice the rights if any of the respondents or whoever may be entitled to get possession to proceed under clause 13 of the said Control Order to evict the appellant
In the premises this appeal is allowed
The order and judgment of the High Court are set aside
In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the parties will pay and hear their own costs
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant who was residing at House No 546 situated at Dhantoli area at Nagpur was evicted from the said prem ises on the ground of bona fide requirement of its landlord
Therefore he became an evicted person within the meaning of section 22 of the Central Province and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order 1949
Being a Government employee he applied to the House Allotment Officer that he may be allotted House No 4061 under clause 24A of the said Control Order simultaneously indicating that he was an evicted person also
The premises came to his occupation on the orders passed by the House Allotment Officer in 1960
The appellant retired from service on 151978
On 1091979 one Vijay Mude one of the respondents moved an application before the House Allotment Officer for vacating the appel lant from the premises on the ground that he has retired
The said application under clause 25 of the Rent Control Order was contested by the appellant that it was not ap plicable as he was an evicted person under clause 22 of the Control Order
Having lust before all courts the appel lant came by way of special leave
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD 11 On the scheme of the different clauses it was only when a person was granted an allotment as a government servant then and then only can clause 25 be invoked for his eviction
In other cases the clause 13 will be relevant
The summary procedure of clause 25 could only be available in case of recovery of possession given to a person as a government servant on his retirement
Indeed the provisions are peculiar
Even if a government servant goes on earned leave or is transferred even then he becomes disentitled to remain in possession of the premises in question and would be liable to be evicted by virtue of clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order
Being drastic in nature therefore one who seeks allotee s eviction has to establish that the allotment to the person whose eviction is sought was made in the capacity 403 contemplated under clause 25
Clauses 23 24A and 25 of the Rent Control Order deal with three independent categories of persons and the summary procedure on proper construction of clause 25 was applicable only where allotment is given to a tenant as a tenant
Clause 25 would not operate if a Gov ernment servant happened to be an evictee and an allotment is made in that capacity
In the instant case on a con struction of the various documents and the evidence adduced in this appeal under these proceedings it is clear that allotment was given to the appellant as an evictee who happened to be at the relevant time a government servant
Therefore on his retirement from the government service he did not cease to be an evictee and did not come within the mischief of clause 25 of the said Control Order
408G 409 A 409H 410B 12 Even if allotment is made to a person who is both an evictee as well as a government servant then if one of the grounds of the order namely that he was a government serv ant ceases to exist on retirement the other reason operates ie he was an evictee and still continues to be an evictee then the allotment would continue
In this case even if it be held that it cannot be conclusively determined that the order of allotment was made in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the appellant was an evictee but it was made also on the ground that the appellant was a government servant and after his retirement the other ground namely the allottee still being an evictee remained valid it can be sustained
410 C F State of Maharashtra  Anr
BK Takkamore  Ors   applied