9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant occupied the premises in contravention of Clause 22(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. 2. Whether the appellant is liable to be evicted under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order. 3. Whether the appellant is entitled to continue occupying the premises after retirement from service. 4. Whether the House Allotment Officer and the High Court erred in their decisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Contravention of Clause 22(2) of the Rent Control Order: The appellant contended that he occupied the premises based on an assurance from the landlord, Shri Basantrai Sharma, that the house was being permitted to be occupied in accordance with Sub-clause (2) of Clause 23. The House Allotment Officer failed to produce any record showing whether the landlord had given an intimation of vacancy to the Collector. The legal liability of giving intimation of vacancy lies with the landlord as provided by Clause 22. If the landlord gave an assurance that the premises were permitted to be occupied in accordance with Sub-clause (2) of Clause 23, the tenant could not be charged with contravention of Sub-clause (2) of Clause 22. The House Allotment Officer did not record any finding on this point, making the order liable to be set aside. 2. Liability to be Evicted under Clause 28: The House Allotment Officer held that the appellant occupied the premises in contravention of Clause 22(1)(b) and Clause 22(2) and was therefore liable to be evicted under Clause 28. However, the appellant argued that he entered the premises based on an assurance from the landlord. The House Allotment Officer did not investigate whether the landlord had given such assurance or whether the landlord had sent an intimation of vacancy. The absence of an allotment order and the lack of evidence supporting the landlord's compliance with Clause 22 undermined the House Allotment Officer's decision. 3. Entitlement to Continue Occupying the Premises after Retirement: The House Allotment Officer held that the appellant, having retired in 1967, was not entitled to continue occupying the premises. However, the obligation to vacate under Clause 25 arises only if the tenant entered the premises under an order of allotment made by the Collector. No such order was produced, and the House Allotment Officer's assumption that the premises were allotted to the appellant because he held an office of profit was not supported by facts. Therefore, the House Allotment Officer had no jurisdiction to call upon the appellant to vacate the premises based on his retirement. 4. Errors by the House Allotment Officer and the High Court: The House Allotment Officer's order suffered from several infirmities, including failure to investigate the landlord's compliance with Clause 22 and the assurance given to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appellant's Special Civil Application in limine without providing a reasoned decision. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should have provided a speaking order addressing the appellant's contentions. The Supreme Court found that the House Allotment Officer's order was unsustainable due to non-application of mind to relevant points and lack of evidence supporting the alleged contraventions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order of the House Allotment Officer and the High Court, allowing the appeal and dismissing the application made by the first respondent to the House Allotment Officer. The appellant was not liable to be evicted, and the allegations of contravention of Clause 22(2) were not substantiated. The decision emphasized the importance of reasonable exercise of power and timely action in enforcing the provisions of the Rent Control Order.
|
