IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No ^ /2010 ?• APPLICANT ^tESPONDENT .•^^ ^' ^- "^' /^ .^^" <•^ LESPONDENT APPLICANT Kawle, S/o. Late Janardan Kawle, aged at present near about 72 years, R/o. Kanhebada, Tatyapara, House No.39/315, Kamasipara Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ^ VERSUS ,c~ Ms. Kumuft Kanhe, D/o. Late ;, aged about 62 years, R/o. Kanhebada, Tatyapara, Kamasipara Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) REVISION UNDER SECTION 23(E) OF THE CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No, 56 of 2010 AppUcant Respondent Resnondent Aoplicant Ambadas Kawle Versus Ms. Kumud Kanhe ORDER Postfor (-2- -7-2010 Sd/~ N.K. Agarwal Judge y fcsA. ^y^ •^ %,. ^.^^/ ^^"' T'^'T..''- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 56 of 2010 ^ Applicant Respondent Respondent Applicant Ambadas Kawle Versus Ms. Kumud Kanhe Civil Revision u/S. 23-E of C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 1SB: Hon'ble Mr, N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Ratan Pusti, Advocate for non-applicant. ORDER (Passed on 12- day ofJuly, 2010) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied wifh the eviction order dated 24-2-2010 passed by leamed Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the RCA") in case No. 3/90(8)/2007-2008, the instant revision has been preferred by the applicant/tenant. Brief facts of the case are as under:- i. The respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 23-A of the Act for eviction of applicant/tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. As per the application, she is a retired government employee and the suit house which was let out to the applicant for residential purpose is required bonafide for her own residential purposes. It was also alleged in the said application that the suit house fall in her share in family partition and the applicant along with his family is ^ /' ''^, ? -:] /y residing in the suit house. It was further pleaded that in reply to the notice sent by her counsel, the applicant has adraitted relationship of landlord and tenant and sent Rs. 7001- as arrears of rent through money order. ii. The applicant filed an application under Section 23-C of the Act for grant of leave to contest the eviction application which was refused by the RCA. The revision filed thereagainst was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7-7-2008 upholding the order passed by the RCA. iii. The respondent/landlord examined herself, also cross-examined by the applicant. iv. Vide the impugned order, learned RCA allowed the eviction application filed by the landlord. Hence this revision. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsel for the applicant would submit that the RCA has committed illegality and material irregularity in passing the order of eviction without recording the findings with regard to the bonafide requirement of the suit house and without assigning any reatson therefor. He would further submit that the order has been passed without application of mind inasmuch as the finding as to whether on the basis of pleading and affldavit, the requirement of Section 23-A of the Act is fulfilled or not, has not been recorded. As per Shri Paranjpe, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reason for its cpnclusion. A proceeding before the RCA is quasi-judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the RCA is a civil court within the meaning of Section 480 and 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, it would be dangerous legal proposition to uphold the orders passed by RCA without application of mind and without writing judgment in an appropriate manner. On the other hand, Shri Ratan Pusti, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per Section 23-C(1) of the Act ifleave to contest eviction application is refused, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant, and learned RCA shall in such a case shall pass an order of eviction of the tenant from the accommodation. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the application preferred by the landlord under Section 23-A of the Act fulfils the requirement of Section 23-A of the Act. Learned RCA has reproduced the contents of the application in its order which are deemed to be admitted as per section 23-C of the Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that learned RCA has not considered the application on merits and has pas&ed the order without application of mind. He would further contend that learned RCA is not expert body like a civil court and therefore, the intention has to be gathered by reading the whole order. Reading of the order would reveal that after considering the contents of the application and effect of Section 23-C of the Act, the order of eviction has been passed by the RCA, therefore, no illegality or material \ •^. proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the RCA is a civil court within the meaning of Section 480 and 482 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, it would be dangerous legal proposition to uphold the orders passed by RCA without application of mind and without writing judgment in an appropriate manner. 4. On the other hand, Shri Ratan Pusti, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per Section 23-C(1) of the Act if leave to contest eviction application is refused, the statenient made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant, and learned RCA shall in such a case shall pass an order of eviction of the tenant froni the accommodation. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the application preferred by the landlord under Section 23-A of the Act fulfils the requirement of Section 23-A of the Act. Learned RCA has reproduced the contents of the application in its order which are deemed to be admitted as per section 23-C of the Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that learned RCA has not considered the appUcation on merits and has passed the order without application of mind. He would further contend that learned RCA is not expert body like a civil court and therefore, the intention has to be gathered by reading the whole order. Reading of the order would reveal that after considering the contents of the application and effect of Section 23-C of the Act, the order of eviction has been passed by the RCA, therefore, no illegality or material \ ^"^— .-"-Sh ^ \^r-v5^^ y '^tS^''1^ •^•Bsia^" irregularity has been committed resulting in miscarriage of justice and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 6. Under Section 23-A of the Act, the landlord may submit an application signed and verified in a manner provided in the rules as if it were a plaint to the RCA on the ground of bonafide need for residential purpose or for non-residential purposes. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the landlord in the instant case fulfils the requirement of Section 23-A of the Act. As per Section 23-C of the Act, the tenant on whom the summons is served shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the accommodation unless he files within 15 days from the date of service of summons, an appUcation supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the RCA and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or in default of his obtaining such leave, or if such leave is refused, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction -shall be deeraed to be admitted by the tenant. The RCA shall in such a case pass an order of eviction of the tenant from the accommodation. On the other hand, if such leave is granted, the RCA is required under Section 23-D of the Act to commence hearing of the application. As per Section 23-D(3) of the Act, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved, the requirement of 7 > p" r 'l^ ~'<'.'—^'? lit.. the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be of section 23-A is bonafide. 7. Construing the provision contained in Section 23-C of the Act, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Ranidas v. Shakuntaladevi (1995 JLJ 272), has held in para 13 and 14 as under:- "It is difficult to accept the view as expressed in some of the Single Bench decisions (supra) of this Court that the Rent Controlling Authority while proceeding under Section 23-C cannot pass a composite order of 'leave' and 'eviction'. Such interpretation is not permissible by the clear language employed in the provision and keeping in vieui the object of tke Act. It is one aspect of the provision to construe it that it requires Rent Controlling Authority to bestow dual consideration on the question of 'leave' under Section 23-C and 'eviction' under Section 23-A. It cannot however be held that such judicious consideration on the question of 'leave and 'eviction' cannot be made by the same order. In fact, plain language of section 23-C warrants such a procedure on the part of the Rent Controlling Authority. We cannot also readinto the provision any requirement on the part of the Rent Controlling Authority to fbc the case for ex parte evidence of landlord for deciding the question of eviction even though the tenant is either absent, has not obtained leave or the same is refused. As has been held by the Supreme Caurt in the case of Precision Steel (supra) arising under the provisions of Delhi Act, uihich are pari material with the Madhya PradeshAct, that ifthe statements in the application for eviction are deemed to be adrmtted for want of contest by the tenant, the Rent Controlling Authority is left with no triable issue; the only requirement then left on his part is to examine whether on the uncontroverted -contents of the application a ground under Section 23- A is made out and the application is neither false, . frivolous nor vexatious as to m.erit rejection and imposition of cost under Section 23-1 of the Act. The stage of deciding triable issues and raising of presumption of bona fide need in favour of landlord is reached where Rent Controlling Authority grants leave to contest to the tenant and proceeds to try the case by procedure indicated in Section 23-D ofthe Act. 14. We are also ofthe view that in contingencies mentioned in section 23-C, Rent Controlling Authority is not required to afford separate opportunity of hearing to the tenant so as to allow him indirectly a right to oppose the prayer of eviction made by the landlord. The obligation to consider the question of grant or / rejection of prayer of evictidn in the light of the 7 r.t ^ (.. ve provisions contained in Section 23-A and 23-1 is on the Rent Controlling Authority regardless ofthefact ofwant ofcontest by the tenant. Any failure or error on the part of Rent Controlling Authority in exercise of his jurisdiction can be corrected only in a revision at the instance of the tenant to the High Court under Section 23-E of the Act. The provisions of Section 23-C however do not contemplate grant of separate opportunity of hearing to the tenant on the question of eviction where there is no contest on the part of the tenant as contemplated by Section 23-C of the Act. We therefore, do not approve ofthe view in that regard expressed by leamed Single Judge S.K. Dubey, J., in the cases of Ganesh Prasad (supra) and Ramchandra (supra). We may also clarify that the proviso to section 23-C enabling the tenant to seek condonation of delay in his appearance and obtaining leave com.es in.to play only where either for some reason the order of eviction has not been passed on the earlier dated by the Rent Controlling Authority despite the tenant's non- appearance or want of obtaining leave or where ex parte order of eviction has been passed. The proviso cannot be read so cts to curtail the effect ofthe main provision in the first part of Section 23-C which confers unrestricted power on the Rent Controlling Authority to decide the question of eviction in the event of no contest by the tenant. The proviso has, therefore, to be independently read and applied to the situation contemplated therein. ° 8. I am also in respectful agreement with fhe above proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. In the instant case, leamed RCA has reproduced the contents of eviction application in toto and had mentioned regarding refusal to contest the eviction application and then aUowed the application Gled under Section 23-A of the Act. • By applying the proposition of law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that without considering the contents of the eviction application under Section 23-C of the Act, he has passed the order but it is also true that learned RCA should have recorded its gS^'S'! .E.'rW'?'??TeE:>. K ^^^fi^^ ^ •v^K'f^y^, 7 -•fi'' '"^r?^" ^' ^am?^ finding that the eviction application fulfils the requirement of Section 23-A of the Act and is not frivolous or vexatious. However it is not in dispute that the eviction application fulfills the requirement of Section 23-A. It is also not alleged that the said application is frivolous or vexatious on the face of it. In such circumstances, even tf the contents of the application as reproduced by RCA in the order is taken into consideration which fulfils the requirement of Section 23-A of the Act in the light of the fact that the leave to contest the said application is refused and the contents of the application are deemed to be admitted, it cannot be said that the landlord is not entitled for eviction decree on the ground of her bonafide residential need and therefore, I do not find any such illegality or material irregularity which goes to the root of the matter so as to interfere in the order passed by the RCA under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. No order as to costs. 11. The revision is dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge -^-