AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 361 wordsV.D. Gyani, J.
Shred of all foots, the short question involved in this revision petition is whether the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, the Authority), has power to restore an application made u/s 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), in the event it is dismissed in default.
Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Section 29 of the Act, submitted that the applicability of CPC is confined to the topics enumerated in this Section and none else. Apparently, Order 9, CPC is not included in Section 29 of the Act It was, therefore, contended that the Authority has no power, either to dismiss an application in default of appearance or to restore the same on an application being made for the purpose. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Fine Pharmaceutical Industries vs. Poonamchand, 1987 (I) MPWN 161.
Shri Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that Section 50 of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules and under Rule 16 of the Rules framed u/s 50 of the Act, the Authority has the power to dismiss an application for default and to restore the same as well Rule 16 provides that "in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules, the Rent Controlling Authority shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908". It is abundantly clear from this Rule that in absence of any specific provision under the Act, the Authority has the power to restore an application and this inherent power to dismiss an application or to restore the same, has been recognised by this Court in yet another decision in Mangalprasad vs. Abdul Hafeez Mohd, 1973 MPLJ 480. In view of this Division Bench decision, relied upon by the learned counsel, which does not take into account this prior Division Bench decision, cannot be preferred.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.