Blog

The revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of SHRI GULAM HUSSAIN V. AKBAR ALI through HON’BLE JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

FACTS OF THE CASE
The applicant was a tenant in the suit accommodation owned by the non-applicant for past 60 years. He was served a notice by 1 Municipal Corporation, Indore stating that the suit accommodation has become dilapidated hence he should remove the same and if he does not do so the same shall be done by the Corporation. However, the non-applicant in collusion with the Corporation authorities got the damaged portion of the suit accommodation removed and the debris fell upon the tin shed and open space of the suit accommodation which resulted in the same falling down entirely. The nonapplicant is not ready to remove the debris which is affecting his business. The applicant requested the non-applicant to permit him to get the tin shed reconstructed but he refused to give him the said permission. Prayer was hence made by him in his application for directing the non-applicant to remove the debris from the suit accommodation and to redeliver vacant possession of the same to him.

JUDGEMENT
In this case, a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the same gets attracted when an order for eviction of tenant is made on grounds specified under Section 23-A of the Act, 1961 and when the landlord recovers possession of the accommodation in pursuance of such an order and either is desirous of re-letting the accommodation within a period of two years from the date of obtaining possession or does not occupy the same within two months of obtaining such possession or having occupied the accommodation, at any time within two years from the date of obtaining possession, re-lets the accommodation to any person other than the tenant without obtaining permission of the Rent Controlling Authority or transfers possession of the accommodation to another person without bona fide reason. In either of such cases the Rent Controlling Authority, on an application by the tenant, may direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the accommodation. No order has been passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-A of the Act, 1961 directing eviction of the applicant from the suit accommodation pursuant to which possession of the accommodation has been handed over to the non-applicant. Thus, the basic ingredients for attracting the applicability of Section 23-G (3) and (4) of the Act, 1961 are wholly absent in the matter. As per the applicant the suit accommodation has been illegally got vacated by the non-applicant in connivance with the authorities of Municipal Corporation and not that it has been got vacated pursuant to an order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in exercise of power under Section 23-A of the Act, 1961. 08. Thus, in this court opinion, the Rent Controlling Authority has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application filed by the applicant as not maintainable. The revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI