^ ^L Ambadas Kawle, son of Lste Janardan Kavvte, aged about 70 years, resident of Tenant of House No. 39/315, Kanhe Bads>> Tatyapara, Kamasi Para Road, Raipur. ndent : Ms. Kumud Kanhe, son of Late Krishna Rao Kanhe, sged 62 years, Occupatio" Lecturer (Rstd.) residenS of Kanhe Bada, Tatyapara, Kamss; Para iection 23 (E) of the CnhattJsaarh_ .^.^.—A—.S A-*& rfift^<S •WSJtSSUVt ^i'^t.f S.^V S • 'resent: Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitjoner. 1ER ("assea on Tn's ".'"' juiy, on admission a? ateo on I.A.No.1 for arant nfstav, ?. The netitioner is aaorieved bv a" ort'fe1' riafad 26.05.2008 n-assaf! bv fhe Rsnt Gpntro"jn" Airthorih'. Rainur ftenceforth 'thfi R.C.A.^ in casa No.03-90f8t whepahv the n®titionar's/tanflnfsanoHcatio" under Section 73.0 of the Chhatt!sa?m Accommoristion Control Act. 1961 flbr short 'tha Act"* for feave to contest the aDOl'cation under Section 23-A of the Actfifed bvthe landlord was refus'ed. 3. The resDondenf'.flandlord on her retirement from Govemment sen/ice on 31.10.2007 jnitte.ted Rroceec'jnas for eviction of the Detitioner on the around of bona fide reauirement for her residenc®. 4. The netitioner in his aDD'ication uncler Section 23-C of the Act for arant of leave to contest the aoDlication fited b" the fandlord admitted as under in paragraph 5: ii ^»-uj&- __<sii_ _. jr*c ___,_._.__^ _._,,j___^ ,.. , ps ._, ^.__. _ j&. l-:¥'?*Trsf '!4i'('-:Il"<?!i':t'fcT-*' IJTKT^ ~^T i-^~^!! j'fe ^•'i'i'Ji T?' 'i^ii yiiCi^ii^i =iici'y-'i£^i '^^i^ii sv» isip\i!~tcti';< & f^^j'?l-j 'f^x .^?yrfF? ^?^ '^T ^ .^^T^I^ <1lfSyn ^T t!" . In DarasraDh 7, jtwas mentioned as under; f~f\ TT??" f^^ . '^KTf"^'—^" ~^T "t' * -^"•i,??TT '??'S^'S"e^ -•* '^ T^T^' 'f^^ \f/ ^Q 'i^r ^ii^'^i £?;i yq?^'-"! ?1'<s^3&i'ri S- wti i'irlX^tG •A^ -I^TTJ -^ f" <? i -1 '*< i -'-^ <- { 5. The R.C.A. held that in view of the admtesion of the Detitjoner/tenant in oaraaranh 5. hjs contention that the respondentflandtord was not the owner of the accommodation was not tena.bie. In any case, under sub-clause (a) of Section 23-A of the Aet. while seeklna eviction of the tenant from a" accommodation let out for residentia! purpose on the ground of requirement of the accommodation for residence, the tandlord is not required to aver and prove that she is rhe owner of the accommodatlon i" questlon but was oniy required to aver and prove relaSlonship of the ia.ndlord and tenant. Since this was not disputed by the petitioner/tenant in the application filed under Section 23-C ofthe Act. the R.C.A. while refuslng leave to contest rightiy rejected the contention of the tenant in that regard. 6, Shri B.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitionerftenant has placed reliance on John Impex (P) Ltd, ys. Sun'nder Singh and offters. (2003) 9 SCC 176, Co/. SiirfniierPal Singh Bhattal (Retd.) vs. Jam, (1996) 4 SCG 27s ^SSSS'^ES^,. ^fw^"~s^^ .!l'',f'~ :&. ^ 1 g, •TftBsea-e^ •J5 ^ '^s'*'''./1 l^^-*s' t- motherys, Prem Deva Nlranjan Devs Tsusl, 1C 1S18. ' 7. A perusa! of the applicaflon and affidavit fited by the petitioner/tenant under Section 23-C of the Act clearly shows that a.s regards the ground of requirement of the accommodation tet out for residentlal purpose for occupation as residence, there is not even a semblance of material in the applfeation filed by the tenant to show any valid ground to contest the appiication i.inder sub-clause (a) of Sectlon 23-AoftheAct. 8. !n Joftn Impey (P) Ltd. vs. Siirinder Singh antf others (supra), the Apex Court had set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Additional Rent Controller, De!hi whereby !eave to defend the application v/as rejectecl, on the ground that contest of the ownersh'p of the iandlord was seriously chaltenged and w-as materia! in question. As mentioned eariier. the above auestion is not at a!l materiat in the nresent ca.se, The !and!ord has souaht evictlon of the tenant tmder suh-clause (a) of Sectlon 23-A of the Act wherein the ownershin of the land'ord over the suit accommodation is jmmateria). Moreover the tenant did not dispute the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. 9. !n John Impex (P) l-t<i. vs= Siirinder Slfigh snff ofhers (supra), it was observed that the Duroose of introducina the Rmvjsion of Section 23-C of the Act is onlv to find out frivojoiiR snd i.!ncor>tnst3b!e cases at the initlal staae, not to e!iniin?>te othsr c'sss of cases whjch reaiiire ac'iorilcation gfl-er contest. !n broceadings under Chaoter !!1-A of the Act wh<sre "o conceivabSe contest is oossibte the iitioation ha? to be ninr'ed :^^^'^:%i'.. V't ' « '>-;l--:'""-e». fi> ^ •^ .'' / "'^. 1''^^-" .<'• jn th®bud, !n Precismn Steel & Rnfnwrinti Wanrs ^"rfanofftervs, i .Qnt/fl Mfranian Oni/fl T'i*!/.:}? i/s(..'nraY the Apex Court hss held as iinder' 'Where fhe tenant ri!as an aoo'ication for leave *o contest i" a netition fbr evjct'on under ci. (a'i nf Provjso to Section 14 (it and jf the afficfsvit nf tha tan3n+ rilsc'oses soch fs.-ts — no proof is ne^ded at tho stage—whichwould disentitle fha nlajntiff from seshlna Dossession, the mere cjiscfosure of such fects must be held sufficlent to arant However, the above decision does not assist the jearnecl counsel for the netitioner because in the oresent case neither the aDDlication nor the affidavit fited hv the Betitioner/tenant under Section ?3-C of the Act djscioses anv around to contest the netitjon for eviction under sub-ctause fa) of Section 23-A. of the Ac.t. fn the absence of disclosure of am facts constituting ground for grant of leave to contest. the order passed by the R.C.A. is jmoeccable. 10. Leamed counsel for the netitioner next otaced reliance on Co/. Swmdw Pa! SSngh Bhattal {RetcfJ vs. Rgffesh KiiRiar Jam, (1 998) 4 SCC 375. ln DgraaraDh 7 of the above cited decision fe auoted as under: "7. !t is settlecS !aw that in Droceedinss like the one auestion when an aDDlicii.tion for tea.ve to defend is made by the tenant supported by an affidavit for grant of !eav®to contest the eviction Detltion filed bv th®tendiord under Section 13-A of the Act, the Rent Controller is not required to examine the issue from the ooint of vjew of the ti'timate proof whjch the tenant may produce 'but the only thing whjch the Contro'ter is required to examine fe to !ook into averments made in the appljcation by the tenant and affidavit in support thsreof to see whether the tenant made out a c.ase whjch, 'f rsroved, would disentitte the _.-—— landiord from claimina th®eviction of the tenant from the Dremises occunied by him |n summa.ry proceedinas." 11. On perusal of the application under Section 23-C fited by the tenant, under sub-cfause (a) of Secflon 23-A of the A.ct, it is obvious that a contest on the around on which eviction is souaht is unconceivable because the petitioneri'tenant did not produce any material whatsoever to show that reauiremsnt of the la.ndlord for residentia! Diiroose was not genuins. i am of the considered opinion that the case law cited above by the teametj counse! for the petitioner does not asslst him in any manner. 12. Lastly, |t was urasd by Shri B.P.Sharma, leamed cotinsel for the Detitioner/tenant that the R.C.A... on refusina lea'/e to contest, was under an obilaatlon to oass an order for e'flction of the tenant from the accommodation forthvii'jth, in view offte deeming fiction created by sub- sectjon (1) of Section 23-C wherei.inder on refusa! of tea.ve, the statement made by the iandlord in the application for eviction sha!! be deemed to be admitted by the tenant. It was also urged that by not passing an order for evictjon an il!ega!ity has c.rept in the impugned order which is liable to be set aside. 13, It is true that once leave to contest an application under Section 23-A fallinfl under Chapter 111-A of the Act is refused, by the deemins fjction created by sub-section (1) of Sectton 23-C, the R.C.A. is required to oass an order of eviction of the tenant from the accommodation. However, in the present case. white passing the impugned order whereby lesve to contest was refused, the R.C.A. -appears to have overlooked this aspect of the matter. !t \wu!c!, therefore, sufflce to direct the R.C.A. to oroce.ed further wlth the aoollcatjon under Section 23-A of -.^ysp's^^ ^tyy\ the filed hv the resDondentflancjlord and disnose of the same in acc.ordance with 1-a.w at the earllest, in vjew of the mandatory provision contalned in sub-section fll of Section 23-C ofthe Act. 14. With the above observation, thts revjsion is dismfesed as being )id ofanymerit. I..A,No.1 forgrantofstayalsostandsdismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge