HIGH CQURT_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 146/2009 PETITIONER (Non-appUcant) RESPONDENT (AppUcaut) Rajesh Upadhyaya son of Shri G.P. Upadhyaya, aged about 43 years, resident of Shaheed Maimiohan Singh Waid No. 2, Stadium Road, Kota, Raipur Versus Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava, son of Shri D.P. Shrivastava, aged about 64 years, resident of near Sai Darbar, Tulsipur, Rajnaadgaon ,'c. s. REVISION UNDER SECTION 23(E) ofthe C.G. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLACT, 1961 (Sinide Beach: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.l Fresent : Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate wifli Shri Kshitij Sharma aad Shri Vivek Ghopra, Adv. for the applicaat Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. wifh Shri B.K. Chakrabarty, Advocate for fhe respondeut. ORDBR (.?'>'-8-2009) Feelmg aggrieved by fhe order dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the Rent ControUing Authority, Raipur ia case No. 01- 90(8) year 2006-07 whereby aad whereunder eviction order has been passed against the applicant fi-oin the suit accoiiuaodation, fhe instaat revision has been preferrcd. Brief facts of fhe case giviag rise to fhis revision are as under:- (1) The respondent/appUcaat filed aa application uader Section 23(E) of fhe C.G. Accommodation Control Act (heieinafter referred to as °the Acf) on the grouud that fhe iion-appUcaat is a retired eiaployee of Bbiiai Steel Plant-froni the post of Miaes Foreman. He beiag the owner offhe suit accomiaodation let out the samc to fhe applicant for 11 moaths at tfae rent of Rs. 2,000/- per inonth vide agreeinent dated 7-5-2003 for canyiag out educational activities. He requires fhe suit accoTnmodation bonafidely for the purpose of starting his BBT 111 ^ own business and for that, he is uot haviag aay other reasonably suitable non-Eesideatial accoinmodation ofhis own ia his occupation in the city of Raipur. It was furfher pleaded that the applicant had not paid rent since February, 2004. The applicaat did not vacate fhe suit accoiiunodatioii despite the notice therefore, the appUcation has been fUed. (2) The appUcant sought permissioa undcr Section 23(C) of . fhe Act aad after gettiag permission, filed his writtea stateinent. Learaed Rent ControUiug Authority framed issues. Parties led evidence. Leamed Rent Controllmg Authority oa appreciation of the pleadiags of the parties, evidence led, passed the eviction order against fhe applicaat. Hence this revisjon. (3) Shri B.P. Shanaa, leamed Advocate for the applicaat assailed fhe impugued order mainly on ttie followiag grounds:- (i) It has not beea proved by the non-appUcaut that he is a retired eniployee of Btulai Steel Plaiit whicb is owned aad controUed by the Central Govenuaertt and as such entitled to file application under Section 23 (J) (i^ ofthe Act; (ii) The person takiag voluntary retireinent cannot claiTn the status of special categoiy of landlord luider Section 23(J](i9 oftheAct; (iuj Admittedly the suit accomxnodation was let out to the appUcant for canying out educational activities, a piirpose wlu.ch cannot be said to be non-resideatial aad therefore, the premises caunot be got vacated for non- residential purpose, a purpose contraiy to the purpose for which the accoiiuaodation was let; (iv) None of fhe dcx;uinents filed by the noa-applicant was exhibited ia fhe case aad thus cannot be read ia ewidence; / ,b (v) Nothing has been ffled to prpve tfae fact that the non- applicaiit is laadlord of the applicaat. (vi) Leam.ed Rent ControUiag Aufhority had not recorded issue-wise fiiiding though 7 issues were ficamed. (vii) It is uot proved by the non-applicant that his need is bona&de. (4) Per contra, Shii H.B. Agrawal, leamed Sr. Advocate appearuig for the respondenf would subniit that adinittedly the non-applicaat is a retired Govermneut employee of Bhilai Steel Plant which is owned aad coutroUed by the Central Goverament; relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted by fhe applicaat in his stateiuent; the suit acconunodation was let out for carryiag out educational activity; as per Section 23(D) of the Act and Rule 16 ofthe Rules 6sxaed thereiuider, the provisions contained ia Section 14(2)(1) of C.P.C. aad Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C. are not applicable. The Rent ControUing Authorily is not a judicial authority Uke civil courts and they inay conuait procedural inistake but substantiaUy the order has been passed covering eveiyttung. The procedure made applicable under the provisions is a suuunary procedure, fhe Court after recorduig a definite finding that the non-appUcaa.t requircs fhe suit accoiamodation geiiuuiely, passed the eviction order; scope of iaterference under revision is laaited aad the oid.er passed by the leamed Rent ContToUingAuthonty based on soimd principle does not catl for auy iaterference and the revision deserves to be dismissed. (5) I have heard leamed counselfor the pardes and perused the record as also fhe inipugned order. (6) Before consideringtherivalsubnussionsmadebyfhe parties, it would be appropriate to advert to fhe releiyaat provisions of CG Acconunodation Conteol Act aud Civil PrDcedure Code. /', 'Sectton 23-A . Specied proolsion for eviction of tcnant on ground of bonafSde requlrem.ent.- Notwithsfanding anything contained in any other law for the time bemg inforce or asntract to the oontrary, a landlord may subimt an application, signed and venfied in a mcwner provided in rules 14 and, 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule io ihe Code of dvil Procedure, 1908 (Vof 1908) as ifit were a plaint to ihe Rent Controlling Authority on one ormore of the follawing groundsfw an order directing the tenant to put the lcmd.lord in possessibn ofthe acoommodation, ncanely:- (a) that the ciccomnwdation let for residentiaf purposes is required "bonafide' by the landlord for occupation as residencefor himselforfor miy mejnber of his fcanily, orfor any personfor whose benefit the accommodation is held and fhai the lccndlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accormnodation of his awn in his occupation in the dty or iown concemed. Expleuuitlon. For the purposes of this dccuse, 'ajccormrmdcition letfor residential pwposes' WSudes- fi) any acconun.odation whic/t hcwing been letfor use as a resfdence is without the ejyress consent of the landlord, iised wholly or partly for any non- residentia] purpose; (ii) any cuxxrmnodation which Iws rwt been let under an e.xpress provision of contract for non- residential purpose; (b) that the cuxxunmodation let for non-residential purposes is required "bona.fide' by the larullord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business OT fhat of any of his nugor sons or unmarried daughters, ifhe is the owner thereofor for any person for vfhose benefit the aocoriwwdaiion is held and that the landlord. or such person has rw other reasonably suiiable non-residential acconzmodarion of hi's oiun in his occupation in the dty or town ooncemed: Provided that where a person who is a landtord has aoquired any accomniodarion or any interest therein by transfer, no applioation for eviction oftenant of such acconimodarton shall be mcdntainable at the instanoe of such person urdess a period of one yeccr has elapsedfrom. the date ofsuch aoquisition. Section 23-C. -Tenant nwt enUtleci to contest except unS.er certcdn cireumstxinces.-fl) The tenant on wham. the summons is servedin thefonn spedfiedin the Seoond Sdiedule shafl not contest the prayer for eviction from.the wxommodation unless hefiles within fifteen daysfram.the date ofservice offhe sumnwns, an applioation supported by an qffidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the applioationfor \^ M eviction and obtcdns leave ftvm. the Rent ControWng Authority as hereinafter provided, cmd in defccutt ofhis appecirance in pursuance of the stamnons or in default ofhis obtairang such ledve, or ifsitch leave is refused, the staternent ma.de by the landlord in the applicatton for ewcfton shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant. The Reni ControWng Authority shaW in such a case pass an order of eviction of the tenani from the accommodafton: Provided fhat the Rent ControWng auihority may, for sufficient cceuse shown by the tenant, excuse the delay of the tencint in entering cypearance or in applyingfor leave io defend the appfication for eviction andwhere 'ex-parte" order has beenpassed, may set it aside. (2) Tke Rent Conlrolling Authmity shall, within one inonth of the date of receipt of application, give to the terwnt if neceasary, leave to contest the appliai.tion, if the applioation supported by an cffidavitfiled by the ienanl disdoses such facfs as would disentitle the lccruSqrd from oblaining an order for the reoovery of possession of the acxxjnmwdation on the ground spedfiedin section 23-A. SecUon. 23-D. Procedure to 6e followed by Rent ControKuig Authority or grant of leave to tencint fo contest.-fl) Where leave is grwited to the tenant to oontest the appHcation, the Rent Controlling Authority shaU commence Ihe hearing ofthe application as early as pra.ctioable cmddedde the same, as far as may be, within svc nwnths of the order of granting of leave io the ienant to contest application. (2) The Renf CantroWng Authority shaH, while holding an enquiry in a proceeding to whicft this Chapter applies, follow as far as practicxtble, the practice ccnd procedure of a Court of Smcdl Cccuses induding the recording 6f evidence under the Provindcd Smcdl Cause Courts Act, 1887 (K OF 1887). The Rent ControWng Authority sha.Jl asfar as possible, proceed with ihe hearing of the applioationfrom. day io day. (3) In respect ofan application by a landlard, it shaH be presumed, unless the oontrary is provect, the requireineni by the lancSord with referenoe to cSause (d) or dause (b), qs the <xtse may be ofsection 23-A is bona fide. Sectton 23-J. Defltdtion of landlord. for the purposes of Chqjrter SI-A. For the purpose of this Chapter 'landlord' meccns a landlord-who is— (i) XXX XXX XXX ,^ (ii) a retired servant of a company owned or controned eithsr by the Centrat or State Govemment; or" (7) The contentions raised by SUri Sharm.a has no luerit on foUowing grouiids:- (8) As far as first contention is concemed, the applicaat ia his appUcation for permission fo defend iinder Section. 23(C) of the Act has stated that the applicaat is i-esidiag ia Rajnandgaon after his retireiuent. In reply to para 1 of the application filed by the respdndent, it was not deuied by fhe applicaat fhat the respondent is a retired servaat of Bhilai Steel Plant since 1-3-2005. Nothing has been said during trial fhat the respondent te aot retired eniployee of Bhitai Steel Plmit. In the affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C., thc appUGant adinitted that the respondent retired on 10th March, 2005 and, therefore, a fact which has not been denied by the opposite party is deeined to be adinitted aud, no further proofis necessaiy. More over, the appHcant is not disputing the fact that fhe retired servaiit of Bhilai Steel Plant comes under the categoiy of au employee of a compaay ovyned and coutroUed by fhe Central Govemiaent. (9) So far as the second confention is concemed, fhe laaguage used in Section 23(J(ii) is clear aad iinambiguous. The dictionary nieamiig ofword ''Rctire" is "wifhdraw". (Advanjoed Law Lexioon 3rd Edition by P. Ramaruxthd. Aiyar page 4120). The m.eauuig of "retireinenf is fhe age at which somebody ceases fuU- tuae einployinent, generaUy at lus or her own choice or soinetimes writteu into a contract ofeinployment. It is not necessarily fhe saineage as pensionable age. (Advanced iccw Lexioon 3rd Ediiion by P. Ramcazatha Aiyar pcige 4121). The word "retiremenf takes wifhin its fold all kinds of retireiaent. WJien it is used ia the context of superaiuiuatioa, it wouM nieaa that it has relevauce aad relates to discharge fixim a post onaccouat of the age fixed for such retirement Therefore, it is not corrcct to say fhat only a person who retires on attaining fhe a%e of -'''•'W) '.....-« superaunuation is entitled to seek eviction ia terms of Sectioa 23(J)(ii) ofthe Act More over, thi's pointwas never raised by the tenant duriug trial, No distinction has been made by the Legislature between a retired servant aad a servaat who retires voluntarily. (10) So far as fhe 3rd coatention raised by Shri Shanna is coiicenied, even by stretch of iinagination, it caniiot be said that tfae purpose of runaing a school or canyiag out educational activities is not a non-residential purpose. (11) So far as the 4th contention is concerued, it is true that iin-exhibited document cannot be read iu evidence. But here in the iustaat case, fhe findiug recorded by learaed Rent ControUiag Authority is based on adinissious in the pleadings as weU as iu the evidence by tbe teiiant and no fault can be found ia it. (12) So far as fhe 5th contention is concemed, the tenaat appUcant categoricaUy adinitted the relationship of landloi-d and tenaiit with fhe respondent in para 2(A) of the application for permissioii to defend iiader Section 23(C) ofthe Act; ia para 3 offhe written statement and ia his stateiaent on oath. (13) So far as 6th contention is concerued, true it is ttiat leamed Rent Controllmg Aufhorily has not recorded issue-wise finding but a perusal of order of learaed Rent CoiitroUing Authority would reveal that the order has been passed after discussion aad recoriiag eveiy aspect of the matter covermg all the relevaat issues involved ia the case and, therefore, it camiot be said that techBical flaw conunitted by learued Rent ControUmg Authority in not recording issue-wise fiiiding in the suinmaiy proceediags, has occasioned faBure ofjustice or caused aay prejudice to the tenaat. (14) So far as the 7th contention raised by Shri Sharma is conceraed, fhat the laadlord has not proved his bona fide need, has also no substaace. It is not in dispute that the iiutial burden has been dischai^ed by fhe landlord by •^ <^' pleading his case specifically in tenns of Section 23(A) of the Act and also by examiuing himself on fhat. In aa application for pemiission to defend, the boaa fide of the requireiuent ofthe laadlord was assailed by the teiiaat on fhe grouiid tliat fhe landlord is not in bona fide need of fhe premises but the suit has been iuitiated in. order to seU it out at a hire price after gettiag its vacaat possession but the tenaat faUed to substaatiate the said ground. Therefore, he failed to rebut the presuinption of law arose ia favour ofthe landlord ia terms ofsub-section (3) ofSection 23 (D) ofthe Act (15) In view of the above, I do not see aay force iu this revision. It deseiyes to be aad is accordiagly dKmissed. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^.