JUMMA Vs. BIRJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S.23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'Act', has raised two important questions of law. Indeed being conscious of this position and conscious also of the fact that decision to be rendered in this matter was likely to affect both pending and future applications of the same nature, I heard counsel at length on different dates. I commend the resourceful assistance which I received from them in this matter which I propose to dispose of finally today, here and now.

(2.) The questions formulated are as follows :- 1. Whether S.23A, in terms, contemplates that relief thereunder can be available only in respect of an accommodation which, on the date of the application, is in occupation of a "tenant" and the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, the 'Authority') shall have no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the application when the applicant fails to establish subsisting tenancy of the non-applicant in respect of the said premises ? 2. When a person sued under S.23A is granted "leave" by the Authority to defend landlord's application for his eviction thereunder and he has filed written statement challenging title in the concerned premises of the applicant/landlord, what procedure the Authority is required to adopt in dealing with the pending litigation ?

(3.) . Before proceeding to decide the questions set out above, it is necessary to state first few admitted facts of the case. The instant petitioner on being granted leave by the Authority to defend the application of the non-petitioner made under S.23A filed written statement denying the fact that he was ever in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant under anybody and he set up his independent title in the suit property. Indeed, in the application itself, the non-petitioner stated the fact that the petitioner was a tenant not under him, but under his predecessor-in-interest, namely, Lalaram from whom he had purchased the suit premises. He also adduced evidence to prove his case set out in the application, examining himself and the said Lalaram and other witnesses. The admitted position on facts is also that Lalaram deposed that although he had executed sale deed in respect of the suit premises in favour of the non-petitioner, the property was not of his sole ownership but ancestral property and that his other co-sharers did not join him as vendors. What also appears on evidence is that the tenancy of the petitioner under Lalaram, set up in his application by the non petitioner, could not be satisfactorily proved. No rent receipt executed by Lalaram in favour of the petitioner could be proved though Lalaram claimed that the petitioner had occupied the suit premises as his tenant before the alienation made in favour of the non petitioner. However, the further fact is also that other witnesses examined by the non-petitioner deposed that Lalaram had never been in possession of the suit premises and they had all along been seeing the petitioner occupying the premises. The clear picture which emerges at this stage on evidence is that the petitioner raised a serious dispute not only to non-petitioner's title to the suit premises, but also to his claim that the petitioner was "tenant" before his purchase, under Lalaram, of the suit premises.