Radheshyam and Others vs Jankibai

N.K. Mody, J.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Office (Revenue) Bhikhangaon, District Khargone is Case No. 53-B-121-2003-2004, whereby the application filed by the Respondent for eviction u/s 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") was allowed, the present petition has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that on 13.08.2001, Respondent filed an application alleging that Respondent is owner of a house situated at Maharana Pratap Marg, Bhikhangaon, wherein the Petitioners are in occupation as tenant @ Rs. 60/- per month. It was alleged that Petitioners are in arrears of rent, since last ten years. It was also alleged that the Respondent requires the suit accommodation, bonafidely. Hence, it was prayed that the order of eviction be passed.

The application was opposed by the Petitioners. It was denied that the accommodation was given on rent to the Petitioners. It was also denied that Respondent is in need of suit accommodation, bonafidely. It was prayed that petition filed by the Respondent be dismissed.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed, evidence was recorded and the order of eviction was passed against the Petitioners, against which the present petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, who was not the Rent Controlling Authority u/s 20-A of the Act. It was submitted that since the Sub-Divisional Officer was having no authority to pass the order of eviction, thus the impugned order is without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer was having no jurisdiction to decide the petition was taken by the Petitioners before the Court below also, but inspite of that the learned court below has not decided that objection.

Shri S.B. Shrungarpure, learned Counsel for the Respondent supports the order. It is submitted that Rent Controlling Authority is to be appointed from the post of Deputy Collector and post of Sub-Divisional Officer is equivalent to Deputy Collector, therefore, it cannot be said that the order has not been passed by Rent Controlling Authority.

Section 28 of the Act deals with appointment of Rent Controlling Authority which reads as under:

Appointment of Rent Controlling Authority: (1) The Collector shall, with the previous approval of the State Government appoint an officer, not below the rank of Deputy Collector to be Rent Controlling Authority for the area within his jurisdiction to which this Act applies.

(2) The Collector may, with the previous approval of the State Government, appoint, from amongst officers, not below the rank of a Deputy Collector, one or more Rent Controlling Authorities, as he deems fit to assist the Rent Controlling Authority appointed under Sub-section (1).

From perusal of the aforesaid section, it is evident that the Collector has to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector to be the Rent Controlling Authority with the previous approval of State Government. In the present case in reply of objection it is not clarified whether Shri B.S. Kushwaha was appointed as Rent Controlling Authority or not ? On the contrary order of eviction has been passed by Shri B.S. Kushwaha in the capacity of Sub-Division Officer (Revenue), Bhikhangaon, District-Khargone which prima facie shows that the order has not been passed by Rent Controlling Authority. In view of this, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 05.09.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bhikhangaon, District Khargone in Case No. 53-B-121-2003-2004 stands set aside. The case is remanded back to the Collector, Khargone with a direction to place the matter before Rent Controlling Authority within whose jurisdiction the area of Bhikhangaon, District-Khargone is situated. No order as to costs.