LAXMINARAYAN S SHARMA Vs. RAMESHWAR R KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved of the order of eviction passed under S.23A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short "the Act, in case No.6/84-85A 90(7) on 9-5-85 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandsaur, has come up in revision under S.23E of the Act.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this revision are that the respondent invoked the special provisions as contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act and filed an application under S.23A(a) of the Act, for seeking eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation let to the petitioner. Summons was issued and served on the petitioner on 5-2-85 but the summons so issued did not accompany a copy of the plaint filed by the respondent. The petitioner appeared on the date fixed and brought this fact to the notice of the Rent Controlling Authority stating that he is not in a position to apply for obtaining leave, as required under S.23C of the Act in the absence of the copy of the plaint as the petitioner cannot make an application as to on what grounds the petitioner obtains leave The Rent Controlling Authority ordered the respondent to supply a copy of the plaint to the petitioner. After the supply of the copy to the petitioner, the petitioner did not apply for obtaining leave within 15 days from the date of supply of the copy but applied for obtaining leave on the date fixed by the Court on 8-3-85. This application was supported by an affidavit. On opposition, the Rent Controlling Authority refused leave on the ground that under S.23C of the Act, when summon is served on a tenant, such tenant has to apply for obtaining leave to the Rent Controlling Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of summons. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner, being barred by time, was dismissed by the Rent Controlling Authority and the right of the petitioner to file the written statement or to defend the case was denied and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the respondent. Against this order, the petitioner has come up in revision.

(3.) Shri R.S. Sikhwal learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the service of the summons issued under S.23B(1) of the Act was not in accordance with the provisions of O.5, R.2, C.P.C., which are mandatory, i.e. it did not accompany a copy of the plaint or the application. As such, it was not a valid service. The petitioner was vigilant, hence, in response to the summons, he appeared in the Court and made a grievance. The copy of the plaint was supplied to him and after supply of copy, the petitioner applied for obtaining leave to defend, on the date fixed by the Court. Therefore, the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, in these circumstances, is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Moreover, the Rent Controlling Authority has not found that even if the petitioner did not apply for leave within 15 days of the receipt of the summons, there was a sufficient cause for not applying within the said period or not. Learned counsel placed reliance on the four decisions of this Court in Gupta Sahitya Sadan v. Sanchalak, M. P. Patya Nigam (1980 (2) MP Weekly Notes Note No.157); Sobhagmal v. Rajkumar Pande (1986 (l) MP Weekly Notes Note No.198); Bhagirath v. Bhanwarpal, 1980 Jab LJ 572 and Tara Prakash Singh v. Balram (1984 MP Weekly Notes No.534).