Mukesh Jain vs Smt. Bhawani Bai

U. C. Maheshwari, J.—Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/defendants/tenants has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2013 (Annexure-P-1) passed by XIth Civil Judge Class-I Jabalpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 40-A/11, whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., for dismissal of the eviction suit of the respondents on the ground that the respondent No. 1 being landlord of the category defined u/s 23(J) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter in short ''the Act''), has right to file the eviction proceedings on the ground of bonafide genuine requirement u/s 23A of the aforesaid Act only before the Rent Controlling Authority and not before the Civil Court, has been dismissed. In the course of arguments on admission, petitioners'' counsel has also apprised me that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Court without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on which, he has filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC., to review the aforesaid order and rehear the matter on merits, but on consideration, the same has also been dismissed.

Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers available on the record along with the impugned order.

In the available circumstances on asking the petitioner''s counsel if the landlord falling under the category of Section 23(J) of the aforesaid Act., and wants to file the Civil Suit not only on the ground of bonafide genuine requirement but also on other available grounds enumerated u/s 12(1) of the aforesaid Act, then in that circumstances, such landlord is bound to go only before the Rent Controlling Authority for one ground of bonafide genuine requirement and should file the Civil Suit on other available grounds or if there are various other grounds enumerated u/s 12(1) of the aforesaid Act, then such suit could only be entertained by the Civil Court on which, he fairly conceded that if the suit is filed for eviction more than one ground including the ground of bonafide genuine requirement enumerated u/s 12(1) of the aforesaid Act, then the same could have been filed before the Civil Suit. However, counsel submits that inspite such legal position, he has come to this Court only for appropriate direction to the trial Court to reconsider and decide the aforesaid application of the petitioners filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC., afresh after extending the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners because the case was never fixed for arguments on his application before the trial Court and the application was decided.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, so also in the light of the settled proposition of law that when the landlord falling under the category defined u/s 23(J) of the aforesaid Act, wants to file the Civil Suit for eviction more than one grounds available u/s 12(1) of the aforesaid Act including the ground of bonafide genuine requirement, then it is not necessary for such landlord to approach the Rent Controlling Authority to get the eviction order on the ground of bonafide genuine requirement, such landlord may file the Civil Suit before the Civil Court on all the grounds available u/s 12(1) of the aforesaid Act. So, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage either for allowing the application of the petitioners or for directing the trial Court to reconsider the aforesaid application, as such petition deserves to be dismissed.

Considering the other arguments of the counsel that the impugned order has been passed without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and even on filing the review application, the same has also been dismissed is concerned, I am of the considered view that in view of the provision of presumption enumerated u/s 114(E) of the Evidence Act., that every official act either judicial or quasi judicial are presumed to be correct, unless the contrary is proved, in the available circumstances, I have not found anything contrary in the order impugned to draw the inference that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Court without following the procedure prescribed under the law. So firstly, on this ground such argument does not have any water for consideration at this stage.

Apart this, the elaborate opportunity of hearing has been extended by this Court to consider the aforesaid application so in such premises also, no direction for rehearing the impugned application is required.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and the findings, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. Certified copy as per rules.