i-*£S~:s=au-&---tA HiGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT B31ASPUR Sinale Bench Hon'bte Shri H.L. Dattu. CJ. PETITIONERS Writ Petation No. 4434 of 1984 1. Mohammad Yunus S/o Sheikh Mohammad, Employeed jn State Bank, House No. 177/89, Chhotapara, Raipur (MP) 2. Mohammad Shabber S/o Sheikh Mohammad, Employeed in State Bank, R/o House No. 867, Pension Bada, Raipur (M.P.) 3. Sheikh Farooq, S/o Sheikh Mohammad, Employeed in Pubiic Department, R/o House No. 867, Pension Bada, Raipur (M.P.) 4. Khairunnisa D/o Sheikh Mohammad R/o Teiibhanda, Raipur (M.P.) versus 1. Sarju Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Manguiuram Yadav, Retd. Raiiway Employee, aged about 60 years, R/o Pension Bada, Raipur 2. Authorised Officer appointed Under Section 39 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (Rent Controiling Authority ) Raipur (MP) RESPONDENTS Writ petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Present : None appears for the petitioners. Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr Advocate wth Shri Pankaj Agrawai, counsei for respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 0781 May, 2007) The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Authorized Officer under the provssions of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Contro! Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in case No. 34^0 (7)92-93 dated 02-12-1994, are before this Court in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) By the impugned order the Authorized Officer in exercise of his povvfers under Section 42 of the Act has directed the petitioners to quit and deiiver the ^ "V- vacant possession of the house bearing No.2/866 and 2/867 situate at Pension Bada, Raipur. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the tenants of respondent No.1 of residential premises bearing No. 2/866 and 2/867 situate at Pension Bada, Raipur. Forthe reasons best knov^n to him, may be, at the iii advice of his Sa'wyer, the respondent No.1 had gone before the Authorized Officer by fiiing an appiication under Sectjon 42 ofthe Act. The Authorized Officer had passed an order in favour of respondent No.1 dsrecting the tenants nameiy the petitioners to quit and deiiver the vacant possession of the premises in question. Aggrieved by the said order the tenants are before me In this writ petition. (4) Shri H.B. Agrawai, learned Sr. counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 would contend that iffor any reason the tenants/petitioners were aggrieved by the orders passed by the Authorized Officer under Seotion 42 of the Act, they shouid have filed an appeai before the Appeliate Authority as provided under the Act, and therefore, the petition fiied by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Court. (5) !f for any reason, the order is passed by an Authority v</hich has no jurisdiction or which does not have any authority of iaw, then the orders so passed by him can be questioned before this Court in a petition under Articfe 226 of the Constitution of India, Therefore, in my opinion the submission of learned Sr. oounsel has no merit whateoever. (6) Then ! come back to be factual matrix of the case. Admittediy, the respondent No. 1 is the iandlord. Petitioners are his tenants in respect of resjdentiai premises bearing No.2/866 and 2/867 situate at Pension Bada, Raipur. The iandlord had moved an application under Section 42 ofthe Act to evict the tenants from the aforesaid premises. The Authorized Officer has invoked his power under Section 42 of the Act and granted the reilef to respondent No.1. The order so passed in my opinion is v^hoiiy iiiegal and irregular. Section 42 of the Act mereiy provides for termination of the tenancy of a person who has been aliotted an accommodation by virtue ofthe office he holds and that tenancy wiil come to an end if he ceases to hold such office on account of his transfer, retirement or othemise and suoh person shall vacate the acoommodation withinseven days from the date of happening of the aforesald event/events. Proviso appended to said Section states that the Coliector or the Authorized Officer may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period for vacating the accommodation by a further period not exoeeding four months if they are satisfied with the request made by the ailottee. The petitioners v/ere not the allottees of the house bearing No.2/866 and 2/867 situate at Pension Bada, Raipur They are in fact the tenants of the respondent. The Authorized Officer by no streteh of imagination couid have invoked the provssions of Section 42 ofthe Act to evict the petitioners from the residential acoommodation which they are occupying. (6) in that view_otthe matter i am ofthe opinion that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained by this Court and accordingly the petition requires to be allowed and it is aiiowed. The impugned order passed by the 2 respondent is quashed. Ordered accordingiy. Sd/- Chief Justice