Sia^'^'t1 v. Deocharan Singh

PresenS: ShriJ.S. ESaraik, counsel iur the applicaat GR&L ORDER (Passed oa 6" day of Deceiaber, 2012) Tliis revision tias been filed by iion-applicant of ac. Case 279/'B-121/'2G06-2007 uuder Scctk»u 23 No. CIuiattisgarli Ac-coiiuiiodation Control Act, 1961 (for sliort 'fhe Act') against fhe onder dated 27-08-2008 passed by Rent Coutt-ol Authorily (for short 'RCA'), Kusmi., District S-urguja. (E$ of

#2. By fhe iinpugned order, fhe RCA aUowed fhe appUcation filed by the Landlord uuder Section 23-A of the Act and directuig evictiou ofuon-applicant from. fhe suit ac-coin modation.

#3. So the short question fhat arises for conslder&tion ia tiiis revisioja is whefher the RCA was justified iu allowing the eviction petition fBcd by fue Laudloixl urider Sectioii 23(E) oftfae Act.

#4. Despite seivice of notice of this i-evision, the non-applicaut has iiot appeaied in fllis inatter and therefoie, I ajca. proceediug to decide this revision after hearing the arg'um.ents of learned counsel appearing for the applicaat aad on perusal of fh.e i-econd offhe case. Suuuussjon raiscd by tue applicaat

#5. this iievisioii petition is iu support of the provisioiis of Cnhatusgarli ..f^S& :[ '<>. ^ ."^s 8 Acco m rnodatiou Control Act, 1961 are not applicablc to the place where the suj.t accoiuBiodatlon is sifraated naniely at Village Kusmi, Tahsfl Samri, District SurgTija. He placeu reliauc-e upou flie iiotificatlon issued by flie State (Annexute A-3) ui support of hls contentioit.

#6. He also suouiltted ffaat this objection was uot decided by the RCA even though raised by the defendaat.

#7. After having heai-d learned counsel appearittg for flie applicaat aad on perusal offhe record, I am incluied to aUow thls revision aud whue settiag asMe of fhe unpugned order, feiaaud fhe case to ttie RCA for decidiag fhe application afresh oa meiit as indicated below,

#8. iu jjay view, tlie objectiou raised by the applicaat shoiild have been decided by the RCA because fhe said objectioa went to the root of fhe iiiatter aud was related to fhe very jurisdictioa of the RCA iu euteilairuug fhe case. Since flus objectioii requines sonie klud ofinquiiy fb.ough Umited, fhe sauie cannot be uiidei' taken Jin revisiou by this Court for the fii'st time. It is for ftus purpose I am of fhe opinion that it should be decjded afresh by the RCA oa uieiits. y. Accoidiagly and in ttie Ught of foregoiug discussiou, icvlsion succeeds. The inipugned order is set asiuc. The case is reiaanded to RCA for decidiug flie claim. petition filed by ffae non- appUcaut under Sectiou 23(A) of fbe Act i.e. case No.279/B- 121/2006-2007 a&esh. The RCA wiU fu-st decide fhe questiou as to whether provlslons ofM.P. Accouuuodatiou Control Act, 1961 Chuattisgai'Ii Accom modatioii Control Act are applicable to the area where fhe suit house is situated i.e. at ViUage Kusau, Tahsil Samri, District Surguja. If it couies to a couclusiou ia the light of uoti.&cattou issued by fue State (Annexure A-3) fhat he does not have jurisdlction to decide fiie xuatter fer want of applicabflity to tlie area where the suit ftie provisions of fue Act ac-coinniodation. is situated, fhen he shall recori his fiauiiig and decliue to hear fhe uiatter for want ofjurisdiction aad iu case he cojmes to the conclusion fuat he caa decide, theu ue wiB Dixiceed to decide fhe appucation ou jiierits.

#10. Siace 110 one appeared &r the non-applicant in fhis inatter and therefore, RCA shaU issiie notice to Hon-applicant/plaintiff fcr hearing the luatter before tiim and then be decidcd the matter -r K-.T A copy of fhis order be produced bcfore the RCA by fuc 11. petitioner/defeudaut on lu-01-2013 to enable fh.e RCA to decide as uirected, afijer issuaace ofuotice to the respoudeut Le. plaintiff to the casc. The matter wiil be decided by the RCA within &ix inonfhs from tue date ofappearance ofthe parties, after sertfice of notice to the plakitiff.

#12. No cost. Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge