RESPONDENT(S) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR CrVIL REVISION NO..S.7...0F 2011 T.S. Dewangan S/o Late Shri Sakharam Dewangan R/o Architect 8s Registered Valuer First Floor Mobin Mansion G.E. Road, Raipyr (C.G.) VERSUS •' Khajista Hasan Wd/o Late Gulam Mehboob Hasan EAC Colony Raipur (C.G.) CIVIL REV!SIQN_U/S 23-E OF CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROLACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDERDATED 24/0^72011 PASSEDBY THE RENT GONTRQLLING AUTHORtTY. RAIPUR IN REVENUE CASE N0. 2-90f8) OF THE YEAR 2006-07 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 57 of 2011 Petitioner(sl Respondentlsl T.S. Dewangan Versus Khajista Hasan Order Post for pronouncement of Order_ _._ 8' -12-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge '7-12-2011 /•" ^Si^^^t t ^^ c-%5??' ''^ '^y".-" ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 57 of 2011 PETITIONER(S) RESPONDENT(S) T.S.Dewangan Versus Khajista Hasan CIVIL REVISION U/S 23-E OF THE CHJIATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROLACT,^961 S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri G.D.Vaswani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adil Minhaj, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Delivered on g -12-2011) The instant revision filed under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short Act of 1961) is directed against eviction order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (for short 'the R.C.A.') in revenue case No. 2-90 (8) year 2006-07. 2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 23-E (b) of the Act of 1961. As per the respondent, she is an old lady and her grand children are now major and unefflployed. The said grant children of respondent intend to start business with the help of the respondent. Therefore, she is in bonafide need of the suit premises. ...'-;>?s%..\ ^'" ^ss^ "s%.'" 'sS?^^^^ "ia.-^'1^ E*»sy1 3. The petitioner/tenant filed an application for leave to contest the petition for eviction on 10.08.2007. The same was allowed by the R.C.A. on 16.04.2008. 4. The R.C.A. framed issues in the case on 07.05.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for permission to deposit the rent on 03.07.2008. Arguments on the said application were heard oa 26.02.2009 and the case was posted for passing the order. The matter was adjourned from time to time for passing the order. However, no order was passed by the R.C.A. on the above application. 5. On 08.09.2010, the R.C.A. observing, petitioner has not Eled any application for leave to contest the eviction petition, directed for striklng out the defence of the petitioner. 6. Respondent has not adduced any evidence. Vide impugned order, the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner. 7. Shri G.D.Vaswani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit: the order impugned is perverse on two counts, 1) the R.C.A., ignoring the order passed in favour of petitioner permitting him to contest eviction petition, has struck off the petitioner's defence inter alia on the ground that petitioner has not obtained the permission to contest the petifibn and 2) without recording any evidence, the order of eviction has been passed, and therefore, the order, on the face, suffers from jurisdictional illegality. It was furftier contended that the accoinmodation was required by the respondent for the need of grand son, who is not a member of the family within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1961 and the petition itself was not maintainable, and therefore, passing of eviction against the petitioner is per se illegal. 8. On the other hand, Shri Adil Minhaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, placing reliance upon full Bench judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of Badrilal, s/o Radhakishanji Goyal vs. Sita Bai, w/o Birdichand Joshi (dead) through L.Rs. Birdichand Joshi and others, 2011 (1) SS.P.L.J. 682, contended that eviction petition filed was maintainable. It was further contended that such ground has not been taken by the petitioner in the memo of revision and the same cannot be urged at this stage. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of R.C.A. including order impugned. 10. Indisputably, vide order dated 16.04.2008, the R.C.A. allowed the petitioner's application filed under Section 23-C of the Act of 1961 for grant 6T permission to contest the eviction petitipn. Ignoring the above fact and without recording any evidenGe even on behalf of the respondent, the R.C.A. has passed the eviction order, which on the face, is perverse. The -'^^E^S^&^^^^ R.C.A. has coinmitted factual mistake in holding, no permission under Section 23-C of the Act of 1961 has been obtained by the petitioner whereas the R.C.A. itself granted permission under the above provision on 16.04.2008. Further no evidence has been adduced by the respondent. 11. In view of above, this Court, without entering into merits of the matter whether or not the grand son for whose need the eviction petition has been filed is maintainable, is of the opinion, the order unpugned suffers from material jurisdictional illegality and is not sustainable in law on the sole ground that leave to defend has already been granted by the R.C.A. to the petitioner. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in my opinion, the ground for interference in the order impugned has been raade out, The revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 13. The matter is remitted back to the R.C.A. for deciding the eviction petition afresh after affording full opportumty of hearing to the parties to lead evidence. 14. The record of the R.C.A. be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the R.C.A. on 17th January, 2012. • 15. No order as to costs. ^..- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge t'