-^pl 4»' s i.1 Sinjlt Bench' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. ^ 7 /2006 APPLICANTS ^ NON-APPLICANTS •yl. Sardar Satpal Singh Aged about 50 years, S/o. Late Sardar Vidayal Singh Babra 2., Sardar Iqbal Singh Aged about 45 years, S/o. Late Sardar Vidayal Singh Babra 3^ Sardar Gurupal Singh Aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Sardar Vidayal Singh Babra All R/o. Church Road, Kedarpur, P.S. & Tahsil Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G.) NON-APPLICANT/ ^•APPLICANT :/' VERSUS Jainath Shukla S/o. Shiv Bihari Shukla Aged about 65 years Occupation- Retd. Governraent Servant, R/o. Ambikapur, Present Address Civil Lines Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) \^^" GIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 23-E OF THE 1A_. CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSS^RH AT BILASPUR Civit ftwteion No. 47^006 r"i II i ^.. E Sardar Satpal Singh ondtwe e'rtiers Vs. Jainath Shukla Post for Onter: 17.02.ax)7 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge h HI6H COURT OF CHHATnS6AI^< AT ^LASPUR B^or»? Hwi'bto Shri ^us»te»tMtip Rwsah^Dcshiiiukh Civil ftcvlston Ne.47/2006 Sardar Satpal Singh andl two others Vs. Jairwill'i Shufeta Shri A.K.Prasad, Counsel for the flippllea«t^non-<@ppUoan'te. Shri M-P.S* Bhatia, Counsel far the re^endent. 0 ft O E ft ^assed on thls ^7H'«feyof Febniary 2W7) Being oggrieyed t>y oaiorclerckitBd 24.3.2006 pasaed in cd®eNo. S/^-121/2001-2002 by Ihe ftent Controlling Aythority (hereinafter referred te as ^he R.C.A.), th®applioanWtwiants twwe preferrect this Revision urwter Section 23-C of the Chhatl-j^orh Accomniodatien Control Act (hereinafter re'ferred to asthe Act). 2. Srief undi^uted facts aro tbort- th®n<m-apf»Ucantherein is th® tandlord of the acwmmodatiwi in q».»stion 'm the city of Arobifcapur and falls within the category of Section 23-J of the Actsince retired from Ihe ^ovemment serviGC and has n®other Mftasonabty syitabte residential accommodation of his own in his ocaipation in AnibitoapuM*. I3n the aforesaid proceecimgs, the ft.C.A. had pflBMed an ff.v^a'/^Korder of eviction of Ihe tenants/ applicants herein. Vkle erder cferted 20.07.2005 passed in W.P.NO. 1784 of 2005, the &?f/wr^or<ler dalael 02.01.2005 was set asid®ond th®R.C.A. wos direc-ted to proceed with the application of the respondent/landtord from the stagc when thc R.C.A. had proceeded ey/wr<tea9ainst thc tenants/opplioants herein. Parties were directed to oppear before the R.C.A. on OIX».200S. It is also not disputBd that -the tenants/applicants herein appeared before the R.C.A. on 01.08.2005 but did not, at any thne Ifiereafter make an application under Section 23-C of Itie Act for lewe to contest -riTe applicotion under Section 23-A of the Act filed by the kmdlord/respondent herem. The tenants/apptican-ts straightaway filed a written statement on 22.08.2009 which was taken by the Rent Controlling Authority on record without gronting leav® t®the appticants/tenants under sub-ctause (2) of Section 23-C of th®Act and after giving an opportunity of hearin9 and for adduciRg eyidence to the parties, the ft.C.A. pecMed the impugned orcter for eyiction of the tenants by albwing the appliooition under Section 23-A of 'tfie Act filed by the landlord. 3. During the hearing of this revision, Shri M.P.S.ffTOlia, teamed counsel fw^w. non-appticant/tandlord raised a pur* qyestton of law that since 1+ie tenants did not file any opplicatton uruter Seetion 23-C of -riie Act duly supported with an affidavit within 15 days from Itie date of appcarance i.e. 01.08.2005, the statement made by 1+»e landlord h the apptication for evictton under $ecti<m 28-A of the Act was deemed under law to be admitted by the tenonts and the ordw for eviction of the tencnts passed by the R.C.A. could not be queslioned in -this revision under Secfrion 23-E of •rtie Act by the tenants due to non-compliance of the iwndatory provisiwi of Section 23-C of the Act. 4. Shri A.K.Praaad, leamed Gounsel fer the applicont argu«jthat since in the proceedings uncter Section 23-A of ll'ie Act, no aimmons was served on the tenents/dpplicoOTts herein in Ihe form q»clfi»dlto the second sdiedule, the tenants w»renot under cn obUgation to fite an opplication undep Section 23(C) of the Act. It was ur9ed that thc tencnts/appHcants filed a written statement on 22.<^.2<^0@ which VIOKS neilher ob^pcted by the landlordA»ona<xpptia»rt"her^in nar by the R.C.A. The fact thact the R.C.A. proceeded to heor th®metter aflw giving an opporhmity of hearing and also for leadJR9 evidenas to twth the parties and decided the appltcatton under SeGttfln i23-€of th& Act thereafter teave under Section 23-C af tlw A^ covM t)e rfearoed to have beem granted by the R.C.A. to th®tenant to c@nt^t 1+ie application under Section 23-A of the Act. Reltonce woa placed on Surendfa V. Raavieet Napae^: Ksan Sir9a'th K fient CarfwfttM Au-thority. Wiwaf' Sooal Chandi'v t>as y. Smt. John Imoex (P)Ltd. V. Swmdef Sinah AndCHher/. 5. The only point whldi requires conskleratiwi in <rilris reyisioti is whether on account of oyn cqsipfication under Section 23-G of the Act duly support^ed by an affidayit not having bMsn filed by the twants within 1S dtays from 1fee date 'their <yp®Brance or fiEt- cmy tinie thereafter before 1tie ft.C.A., Itie order of eviction pasaed by tlw R.C.A. is not open to chaltenge by the tenants on th& ground -rtiat ttee kMndbrd did not require Itie accommo<fart'ton bona fide for his residence, 1. 1998-11 M.P.W.N. 208 2. 19990) M.P.W.N. 76 3. AIR 2003 NOC 2W(Calcun^ 4. (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 176 4 6. Chapter EEI-A of Ihc Aet deate witili eviction of the tenont on grkound of <kbona fide11 requlremwit, Section 23-A is a ^ecual provteion for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide riequireroent. A Iflndtord falling under any of the categories mentioned in Sectton 23-J of the Act, may aibmit an flpplicatton undter Sectiwi 23-A of the Aet for <m order direcMng -tfie terwnt to put the lcndtord w» possesdon of 1+ie accommodation on groynds of borxi fide re<|yjrement eiltier for residential purpose or for non-residentiat pyiyose. Section 23-8 requires that the R.C.A. shall issue a summwis to -Ihe tenont ht Ifce form specified m the second sdiedute on an a|^?lifiation under Sccl-ion 23-A being filed. In Itie present cas®,since 11'ie tenonts/opptiosnts herein were; erroneoysly proceected ex fwi^l^ by the R.C.A./the said order was set aside in W.P. No. 1784 of 2008 yide wder dated 20.07.2005 direct-ing Ihe part-ies to appear bcferB ·theR.GA. on 01.(B.2(%)S. In 1+iis view of the incrt-ter, upon a clirection bcing givwi by the High Covrt to the parties to appear before Itie R.C,A» on Ol.(%.2(%)5,1+ie R.C.A. was net undcr an obli^tton to isiue augintorw to the tenants in relation to the fl^pli<»tlonunder Secfrion 23-A of thc Act. 7. Section 23-C of 1t»eAct reads as un<ter: 23-C. Tcnant not i^itted to cont»s* •xc»pt undw cerfrain C(rcuinstam»s.<-N-(I)The tBi%arrt> on wh@m the syniinons js served in tiie form ^pecified in the Secand SGbeAite shall not <»ntesfthe prayer for eviction from 'Hw accemmodatien untess he files within fifteen days from the date ®fservtae of the summons, an application supported by an affidwit statin^ the grounds on wdtidi he seeks to <»n*estthe d^ticcrNon for evictiwi flnd obtains teave from 'Nie Rent ControJting Authority as hereinafter provided and in default af his cpp^irance to puraiance of the symmons or in drfouh" of his obteintr®»t<^i leave, or if ajdh teave is refused, the stateHient inade by 'rtie IQ fandlord in the flpplication for eyiction diatl be deetn»<I t@ be admitted by the t<mant. The Rcnt ControUmg Avrtionty shalt m such a case pass an order of eviction of the tenafit frow th^ aa»nimodation: Provided -rtiat -the Rent ControUin9 Aulhority may, for ajfficient cause showm by the tenant. excusc llie delay of 1he teneait in entering flppearcuice or in o^ilyinQ for lecwe to dcf&nd the application for evictiwi ondwhere *ex ffarts" wdtr has been passed, moy s^t it aside. (2) The RCTII Controlling Atithority diatl, within on» mon-fh of 1+»edoi*eof receiptof flppKcattwi. giw to th®'hwMnt, if necessary, leave to contast tiie application. if Ifee a(^Hea*ion supported by an affidavit filed by th®teneu'it disclases aieh facts as would disentitle the landtord from obtciining an ordep for the recovery of possession of the accomniodfiEtion on 'rtie ground specified h Section 23-A. The provisiwi contained ih Chopter III-A provides a speedy remedy to a Ifla'idlord fallin9 withln Iti®Gal'ttgery nientioned in the Section 23-J of the Act- to seek eviction of th®terwtten 9rounds of "bona fide" requirement. Therefore, umder Scction 23-C, 'rtie; tenont was under an obligation to fite <m flpptication <lvly supportedl by an fltffictovit stating the grounds on whksh he a>ught te eentest •ftic application for eviction wv^'m fifteen days frem date of seryie®of summons or, in the peailiar facts of tkis ^se, within fiftecndays from th®ftrst oppearance of the tenatt befons tto®R.CA u^wn on order being passed by th®H<9h Courl- «n W.P.No»t784 of 2006 on 20.07.2005. 8. The proviso to sub-elavse (t) of Sectlon 23-C au-rtiorizes the ft.C.A. to excuse the dekxy of •rtw tenoa'it bt entering appcarwice or in <yplying for teave to defcnd the dpplication for cvicfiw and also to set aside an ex parte order which has b®»ipasaed upon iatffidcnt cfluse being ^iown by itie tawnt. In lliis case no su^i c|ipKcatiwi ^uly supported by cn affidavit wus fited by the 1»(K»»tat euiy tinie dtirmg the proce®din9Sbcfore the ft.C.A. 9. A plaln reading of aib-elavse (t) of Sectten 23-C ctearfy g^es *o ^iow that unless the tencrit files cn cpplicatjon cluty «^»portedwj-th an affidavit stating the ground on which h®seeks to eontest Ihe applicfftion for eviction and obtains teave from the K^A., as providted in sub-chuse (2) of Section 23-C, the s*ort«wer»tmade by the tondlord in the apptication far eviction idwll be deeiwBd 'to be admittetl by the tenant cmd in aiGh a coise the R.C.A. stiall pocM oai order for evictien of Ihe tenont. 10, &ib-Bclausa (2) of Sect^ion 23<NC of <riie A€tafaa&reveals 1t cfeMir intaition of the Logislature 1iiat Ihe ft.C.A. is atsQ undksr dui obliyriKon to pass or<ters on the flpptioktion fited by the t^rwnts yndter aaib-elay^B (1) of Section 23-C of the Act wilhh one menth of the cbt®of wsoeipt of the Qppljcation. An order refusing to grant teaw to •ftie terNmt, since werys with the order of eyiction, wotild al» b®opwi 1^) challenge under Section 23-E of 'the Act in Revlsion before ih®High Court'. Sinoe the wenls used by 1tie te^istature in SecfBn 23-C are clear and unambiguous a ineanOTg diffensnt liion what was intended by the Le9islature coyld rwt be attribut&d. 3jn •tt'iis e®se,the tcncB'ite upon appearance before Ihe R.C.A. on Ol.^.20(®eBd not file any application duly aipported wi1+i an affidwit fop tecve to cwitest the flppllcation for eviction. Tlie Iwiants al^ did iiot fite any appMootion under l4ie prevlso to svb sect'ion (1) of Sectlon 23 of the ,Act before 1he R.C.A. St this vfew of ^ne niatter, •rt'iere is no room f®rany dovbt that the provision under Sectton 23-C of the Act teing manGbtory in ^^ nature, since 1tie tenants did notmakeany appHcatwn ai^@rt(Kl with an affidavit under Scction 23-C (t) of the Act, Ihe R.G.A. eught -t® hav®straightawoy proceecl®dto pass on order for evjcticm of Ihe tenant from Ihe Gccomrnodation under Section 23-C (t) of th< Act. The mere fact that the R.C.A. in scnieus cen'travcatiwi of the proviskm contained in Section 23-C of th®Act, to®l<the written stateiwmt of the tawnt on record and gcnw opportynity of hearing and to lead evidence to the parties could m no manner be construed to be suffident complionce of the mandatory provlsion contained in Section 23-C of the Act t>y ^i®tenant. I haye gon®through tiie GBE^ law cited by Ihe lcxxmed counsel ferthe apptiGant. Mone of th^ case law cited deals with the question in is&ie cnd opplies to the peauliar facts of the case. The only ground raised by the oppttcduits henin in the writtwi statement fited on 22. .200S was that Itw n<m-cpplicant idiiould continue to live wil+i his son at DoHgai^Qirh so that he Is well taken care of and not s^iarately at Ambikopur. This greiasd, in my considtered opinion, coytd/ in no axse, be said to be a ^rauiid to permit th®applicanWtenants to contest the oppliGation under Section 23-A of the Act fited by ^ie non-apptiGant/londtordherein. 11. The t^iQnts/dpplicants herein Ihus havin9 faited to make an application undei* Section 23-C of the Act for leave te defend earuwt question the propriety of the impugned ordea* pessed by Ihe R.C.A. under Section 23-A of Ifie Act in favow of 1h® lcaidtopd/non- cpplicant* 12. In -this view of the matter. 'rtie impygiied order cki'ted 24.03.2006 passed by the ft.C.A. connot be queslioned by the teiiants on the ground that Ihe bona fide requirement of the londterd was not 8 ..4 established since under sub-ctau«(1) of S®riiw23-C of the Act fei the absence of oui appliaation fited by the temnts for teave to a»n<test the application under Sectien 23-A of the Act, thc stetement wade by the landlord in Itie flpplicationunder Section 23-A ®fthe Act ad'iall be deemed to be admitted by 'the tenants and the R.C.A. wat viidta' an obli9ation to pass an order of eviction of the tenan'hi frow 1+ie aca>mmodation, t3. In tii®peiailt, Ihis reyision b&ing dewid of nierit ts disiRiiwe^. There ^iall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge