MANGAL PRASHAD SOBHARANI Vs. ABDUL HAFIZ MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 81 of 1966 holding that the Rent Controlling Authority under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, had no jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal of an application before that Authority in default. THIS appeal has been filed on leave being granted by the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE material facts that give rise to this appeal are that an application was filed by the appellant under section 10 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), against the respondent. THE application was fixed for hearing on 17th July 1964. On that date the appellant was absent but the respondent remained present. THE Rent Controlling Authority, therefore, dismissed the appellant's application in default. Later on, the appellant filed an application for restoration of the application. THE respondent contested the question of restoration. THE Rent Controlling Authority dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that under the Act it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside the dismissal.

(3.) SHRI P. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the learned single Judge has taken the view on the basis of the decision in Ruplal v. Shiv Shankar.(1952 NLJ 404=AIR 1953 Nag. 191.) He submitted that a later decision of this Court in Sunderlal v. Nandramdas(1958 MPLJ Note 1 = AIR 1958 MP 260.) runs counter to the decision, in Ruplal's case (supra). He contended that the provisions of the Accommodation Control Act which were before their Lordships in the case of Ruplal (supra) could not be said to be identical with the present provisions. Learned counsel further submitted that the decision in Manohar Lal v. Mohanlal (AIR 1957 Punj. 72.) is a decision under the Accommodation Control Act itself.