IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT‘ BILAsPUR: CHHArrISGARH SINGLE BENCH QIVIL REVISION N0. ?© OF 2005 Am ’92“ ‘ 3 REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 2 E OF THE N CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 ( 1‘ 2 E ruhw, . 7 , C / Tenant kgQwg ‘9.p~£ '* y ' (/“Subhash Aged S/o Shri about Bhanwarlal Jam 39 years jain 9’]. R/o Behind Pujari School, " ‘~ z\. Pt. Ravishankar Ward, Rajatalab, Raipur (CG) ‘ § Versus L Non-AQQIicant j rResQondent § 6)\ /Smt. Pushpa Shrivastava Wd/o Late Mahesh f / Land—lady Shrivastava, aged about 56 years, R/o (3—2/5, 5 Building, Near‘Ci‘vil ‘ Lines, Durg (CG) I , @. ‘ XLHC‘22 3.12.2005: Shri Sachin Singh Rajput learhed counse! for the applicant. Shri Vivek Sha’rma learned counsel for the respondent. Heard. The applicant/tenant has preferred .this revision petition under section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh‘ ‘commodation Control, Act (hereinafter _ referred teas “Act") whereby ap‘ ication for leave todefend preferred by him under section 23-C of the A6 has been rejected on the grOun’d that it was not supported by affidavit an was med'belatediy Without there being’ ’ V~ any explanation there for. 2; Learned counsei for the applicant submits that the applicant received notice of the procee ings and appeared before the Rent Controlling Authority o'n 2.3.2005 and was granted time‘to file the written statement and ultimately it wasti d onJ11.4’.2005. Thereafter, he filed an application for leave to defend o 27.4.2005. but it was not supported by however rejected by the impugned affidavit. The said application orderdated 9.5.2005. ' ' 3. Learned counsel for the pplicant submits that delay in tiling the application for leave to defend i, explainable in the terms that since the applicant was granted permissio to tile written statement, leave to appeal i L e further submits that the applicant t- might be impliedly granted. subsequently moved an applicat n Lorie ve to defend supported by.an l c s v XI-HC-22 m ma. mam 31w? m CK'Jbjos: ' W anémwm Q mmmwE‘-d WW wm méfa‘ $af'awm affidavit on 30.5.2005. Relying on the decision of the High Court of MP. in 1 the matter ‘of Gopal Shankar .Sahai Vs. Thékur-Sah‘ab Sirigh reported in 1986 MPLJ, 163 submits that it is not the requiréme'nt that ’the application must be accompanied by an affidavit and it cannot be rejected simpiy for want of It and It Is th duty oi the Rent Controlling Authority to grant leave to defend if the appl a case on merits. \ 4. On the other hand learn ed counsel for the respondent relying on _ the judgment of High Court of P m the matter of Tllakraj Sharma Vs Shyamabar Tlwarr reported In 1997 (1) JLJ 295 and submits that where the tenant did not avall an opp rtunlty of fling an application for leave to defend and fies application bel tedly, the application must be reiected He further relied upon the judgmen of the High Court of M P in the matter of Bhanwarlai Vs T N Saxena ported in 1993 (1) MPWN Note 86 and argued that where the applica ion for leave to defend is not tiled Simpl ' becausethe written statement i on record, it is of no consequence. 5. From the perusal of t e order sheet of the Rent Controiling Authority’ it is evidentthat th learned Rent ControllingAuthority had granted time to the tenant to til his written statement on three occasions and ultimately it was med on k1 .42005 and thereafter an application for leave to defend was filed on 27 4.2005 though it was not supported by the affidavit. From perusal 'of secti n 23-C of the Act it is clear'that the Rent Controlling Authority has discr tion to excuse the delay on‘thepart of ant is otherwise in a position to make out i ll i , i [‘fléé’r‘ea y Xl-HC-22 WW WWWc4€75/©§‘m 200 WW m?mR ' $Wan€$r ’ tenant In entertaining the apphcat extends to the extent that same c has been passed and the same n 6. ‘ tn the instant case the gro . for ieave to defend is that the. atternative accommodation avail purpose of her bona tide Lreq granting order of eviction under Si has to estabiish that he does n accommodatidn in the‘town wh to the opinion of this Court, t ere was triable issue before thewRent y Controlling Authority to adjudicat the contention of the respective parties and therefore, theiearned Re t Controlling Authority ought to have afforded an‘ opportunity to the .t ant to file an affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend a d he ought to have condoned the delay in tiling the application particula ly in view of the fact that the time was granted earlier to the tenant for til ng written statement. i. " In View of above, the’ appl ation is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Rent C ntrolling Authority is directed to conSider the defence of the applicant and‘thereafter pass appropriate order in the case . on for leave to d“efen'd and this discretion ‘an be ailowed even after ex parte order lay be set asrde. .Ind taken by the tenant in his application non applicant/land iady has a vacant able with her which is sufficient for the Jirement. The condition precedent for action 23-A of the Act is that the land lord at possess any‘suitable and alternative e Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge [11% éfed the premises is situated.’So according . e