i. ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •, (hi|tr1 CIVIL REVISION No. 6^ /2011 REVISIONUNDER SECTION 23 E (2) OF CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961. APPLICANTS/TENANTS 1. Sardar ^Satpal about S^years, Singh, aged RESPONDENT 2. Sardaf Iqbal Singh, aged about 45 years, S. Sardar Gurpal Singh, aged about 42 years, All S/o Late Vidyal Singh Babra, R/o Church Road (in front of Church) Kedarpur, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tahsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Vs. 1. Jainath Shukla S/o Late Shivbihari Shukla, Retired Govt. Servant (now died) Through : their legal representatives 1 (9) Smt. Saroj Shukla W/o Late ^' Jainath Shukla, aged about 74 yrs. 1 (b) Sachin Dev Shukla S/o Late Jainath Shukla, aged about 50 years, 1 (c) Jaidev Shukla S/o Late ^" Jainath Shukla,, aged about 48 years, All R/o Church Road (in front of Church) Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). Being aggrieved^against the order dated 21/06/2011 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Ambikapur in case of "Jainath Shukla Vs. Satpal Singh and others" in Case No. 03-6-121-2505-06. Certified copy of impugned order dated 21/06/2011 is filed and marked herewith as Annexure A/l. ^ JS.j"^ liUil <.»i |E .'tl e%^'T*gS?i A 1 S iSUAi Sardar Sato-al Singh and others <• Jainath Shukia and others Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai with Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the applicants. Shri PK Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahui Mishra, counsel for ISt (1SIAugust,2011) G. Minhaiuddin,7 Heard learned counsel for the partles and perused the material avaiiable on record, including the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently contended that after the death of piaintiff Jainath Shukla, the original landiord, the bonafide need of the landlord has disappeared and therefore, the order of eviction has become unexecutable. He has fuilher contended that while dismisslng the application of the applicants/tenants, no reason has been assigned and it has been dismissed sirnply as being devoiu of any substance. As the Rent Confrolling Authority is a quasi-judicial authority, therefore, it is expected of hirn that the authority wiil a reasoned order, but the same ha$ not been done. 3. •' He has also contended th'at the Rent Controlling Authority ha iirected the^ Executive Ma'fiistrate to put the L.Rs. of She original landlord late Shri Jainath Shukia in possession ofthe suit house within seven days, which is contrary to the procedure prescribed in Ruie 16 of the Chhatfisgarh Accommodation Controi Rules, 1966. 4. Learried cuunsei for the applicants, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the matters of SAatontefa^w_and z and (2610) 3 SCC 470, submits that subsequent events can be considered even at the stage of execution. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Papanna Vs. K. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1577 has been held to be obiter dicta in the above two subsequent decisions. 5. On the contrary, Shri PK Verma, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate appearing for the respondents, has contendec that before the death oforiginal landlord !ate Shri Jainath Shukia, the order of eviction had become finai after dismissai of SLP which was filed on behalf of the appiicants/tenants and subsequent to that, a review petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. This is not in dispute that the initiai eviction order agalnst the ippiicants/tenants was by the Rent Controlilng Authority on 24.3.2006, against which a revision bearing No.47/06 under Section 23(E) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Contro! Act, 1961 was fiied before this Court, whteh was dismissed on 27.2.2(X)7. Against this order, a SLP was preferred on behalf of the applicants/tenants and the same was dismissed on 26 August, 2010. The original landtord Shri Jainath Shukia expired on 26.10.2010. A review petitlon was fited 3efore the Hon'bie Supreme Court and the same w-as aiso dismissi on 12th Januarv, 2011. 7. In She of PV Papamma (supra) and Syed t, AIR ?C 1724, She Hon'ble Supreme Court h-as hefd Shat though subsequent ivents can be looked into tl!i the decree or order of eviction finaiity, but once the or order of eviction ha^ been afflrmed by -the' hfghest Court, then in the e'xecution proceedings, the subsequent ivents cannot be taken'nott'ce of. ' Learned counsei for the appiicants has contended {hat the above subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sh( year 2004 Bai) and 2010 (Sheshambar), it has been obsen/eu tftat the observations of the Supreme Court in PV Papanna (supra) obiter dicta. Even obiter dicta of the^Hon'bIe 2 ^ Supreme Court is binding on this Court. In aduition to this, one of the decisions cited on behalf of the applicants was rendered by the Supreme Court and reported in the year 2004, and against the order of iviction, revisson petition under Section 23(E) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was filed before thls Court in the year 2007, but this judgment was not brought to the notice of the Court at that tlrne.. So far as the order of eviction against the applicants/tenants is poncerned, the same has been affirmed right up to the Hon'bie Supreme Court and as such, now by taking notice of the subsequent events i.e. death of the original landiord late Shri Jainath Shukia, this Couri: wiil be bordering on judicial indisciptlne and impropriety. 10. In the result, the revlsion petltion being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. However, so far as order of the Rent Controiling Authority dated 21.6.2011 relating to a direction to the Executive Magistrate to put the LRs of !ate Shri Jainath Shukla in possession of the suit house is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. While executing the order of eviction, the Rent Controlling Authority shaii be free to put the LRs of the original landlord late Shri Jainath Shukla in possession of the suit house in accordance with law. order as to costs. ^ Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge