TILAKRAJ SHARMA Vs. SHYAMABAI TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of eviction and refusal to grant leave to defend passed by the Rent Controlling Authority.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : Landlady Shyamabai Tiwari filed an application for ejectment under section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on 24-7-1991. Notices were issued to the tenant-applicant and the tenant applicant entered his appearance through his counsel on 13-8-1991 and sought time to file reply. The case continued thereafter on different dates. On 11-12-1991, an objection was raised by the tenant applicant before the Rent Controlling Authority that summons have not been served upon him as provided under section 23-B of the Act. This objection was decided on 27-3-1992 and the Rent Controlling Authority directed summons to be issued to the tenant as provided under section 23-B of the Act. The summons as required under the law were served upon the tenant on 22-4-1992. The case was fixed for 28-4-1992. On that date, the counsel for the tenant-applicant sought time to file reply. The case was thereafter adjourned to 6-5-1992, 13-5-1992 and 19-5-1992. On 19-5-1992, an application for leave to defend as provided under section 23-C was filed by the tenant. Admittedly, this application was not filed within 15 days from the date of receipt of summons by the tenant on 22-4-1994. When objection was raised that the application under section 23-C for leave to defend was barred by limitation, an application under section 23-C read with section 5 of the Limitation Act and section 151, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the tenant on 30th March, 1992. The application did not disclose any sufficient cause as provided in the proviso to section 23-C of the Act. It was stated in the application that the mistakes have been committed by the landlady in the proceedings which shows that her intentions are mala fide. It was further stated that looking to the circumstances of the case, and mala fides of the landlady, the delay should be condoned.

(3.) SHRI Manindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, vehemently urged that the notice under section 23-B was not served and in the absence of proper service the delay ought to have been condoned. He also submitted that the Rent Controlling Authority fell in error in allowing the application for ejectment and that it did not proceed according to law. He further submitted that even after refusing to grant leave to defend, the Rent Controlling Authority ought to have satisfied that the need of the landlady is bona fide. On the other hand, Shri V P. Verma, counsel appearing for the landlady - non-applicant contended that if application for leave to defend is not filed or leave to defend is not granted, then the Rent Controlling Authority has power to pass order of eviction of tenant from the accommodation as provided under section 23-C of the Act.