K.L.PANDEY,J. - (1.) THIS is petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing by certiorari - (i) a notice dated 28 July 1962 requiring the petitioner 2 to show cause why action should not be taken against him under section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act); (ii) an order of the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority, Raipur, dated 22 August 1962 by which it decided to lodge complaints against the petitioner with a view to prosecuting them under sections 43 and 46 of the Act; and (iii) notices dated 22 August 1962 and 17 September 1962 requiring the petitioners 2 and 3 to vacate the disputed accommodation by a given date and warning them that, if they did not do so, they would be compelled so to do by use of force. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to forbear from dispossessing them, or any of them, from the accommodation.
(2.) THE disputed accommodation situate in Raipur city, bearing Nos. 572 and 573, is owned by toe respondent 2. In the year 1949, it was allotted to Shewandas Dayaram. The petitioners alleged that the accommodation was allotted to the firm Shewandas Dayaram and was thereafter used by that firm for carrying on its business. After that business was discontinued, Dayaram (petitioner 1), this wife's brother Bhagwandas (petitioner 2) and his nephew Govindram (petitioner 3) have been residing therein and carrying on their business in the name of Bhagwandas Gagumal. Since the landlord (respondent 2) realised that he could not evict the petitioners, he induced the House Allotment Patwari to make a report dated 25 July 1962 to the effect that Dayaram (petitioner 1) had vacated the accommodation and that the respondents 2 and 3 had unauthorisedly taken possession thereof. Thereupon the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority allotted the accommodation to a Government servant (respondent 3) and took action evidenced by the impugned notices and the order dated 22 August 1962 against the petitioners 2 and 3. In answer to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 stated that, in 1949, the accommodation was allotted to two individuals, Shewandas and Dayaram, and not to any firm called "Shewandas Dayaram" It was further stated that while Shewandas had already vacated that part of the accommodation which was in his possession Dayaram voluntarily vacated the remaining part in April 1961 and thereafter the petitioners 2 and 3 unauthorisedly took possession of the accommodation. There was thus a contravention of clause (b) of section 12 (1) of the Act which was punishable under sections 43 and 46 of the Act As provided by section 39 (4) of the Act, the petitioners are also liable to be evicted, if necessary, by use of force.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that this petition should be partly allowed. We do not wish to say anything about most of the facts which are disputed. We must, however, notice that, even though it was specifically brought to the attention of the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority that Dayaram continued to reside and carry on business in the accommodation and he had allowed his relations to reside with him in that accommodation no opportunity was given to Dayaram to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in the matter. It will be strange if a tenant claiming to be in possession of an accommodation could be dispossessed by use of force without being given an opportunity to show that he is entitled to remain in possession and is not liable to be dispossessed.;