Heera Lal Bardiya vs Rent Controlling Authority Jabalpur and Another

Arun Mishra, J.

In this writ petition the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur refusing to release the accommodation and ordering letting it out to respondent no.2 Shri Partho Mukarjee, has been assailed.

The house in question is owned by the petitioner is not in dispute. It was occupied by Shri Onkar Prasad Dubey, tenant. It was vacated by him. Shri Onkar Prasad Dubey was allotted the accommodation by virtue of he is being in employment by the R.C.A. Onkar Prasad Dubey informed the R.C.A. that he has got his own house constructed. As such accommodation in question is not required. Case was registered on the said prayer of Shri Onkar Prasad Dubey and the R.C.A. Jabalpur ordered the proposal of allotment to be sent to the owner. The owner contended that the accommodation in question be not allotted any further to someone else as petitioner requires the same for the purpose of the study and residence of his grandson Shri Manoj Kumar. Certain evidence was adduced by owner before the RCA. As Per order dated 10.8.1990 on the basis of the spot inspection made by the RCA. RCA on 21.7.90 has passed the impugned order holding that he found the accommodation in question locked and made enquirty from Smt. K.K. Benerjee and Shri M.G. Khalkar, the tenant residing at the first floor. They stated that after Onkar Prasad Dubey vacated the house in question, the same is not occupied by any other person. On the basis of this information collected on the spot inspection, impugned order has been passed holding that the owner does not require the accommodation and was having adequate accommodation for the residence.

Ku. Shilpi Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the approach adopted by the RCA is bad in law. Spot inspection has been used for impermissible purpose. No evidence could be collected and utilized nor oral enquiry could be relied upon by the RCA while passing the impugned order.

Shri Adarsh Muni Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, has supported the impugned order.

From the bare perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the RCA has not applied the mind to the fact situation of the case and the evidence recorded. The finding which has been arrived at that owner is possessing adequate accommodation for the purpose of study and residence of grand son Manoj Kumar, is not based on discussion of evidence. It is based on assumption, surmises and conjectures. Simply because the house in question was found locked at the time of spot inspection, it could not be inferred that the same is not required by the owner. Moreover oral enquiry at the spot could not be made from Shri M.G. khalkar and Smt. K.K. Benerjee. If their statements were to be acted upon. They ought to have been examined as witnesses before the RCA and opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to cross examine, that has not been done. The scope of spot inspection, is limited in order to ascertain the dimensions etc. Purpose is not to collect the evidence of the nature which has been done in the instant case. Thus, the impugned order dated 10.8.90 which is based mainly on the spot inspection, is liable to be set aside and is quashed.

Resulatntly, writ petition is allowed. RCA is directed to pass the fresh order in accordance with law considering the requirement of the petitioner and his grand son in an objective manner. Let the exercise be done within three months from today. Parties are directed to appear before the RCA on 15.1.2003. Costs on parties.

C.c. as per rules.