CHIMANDAS BAGOMAL SINDHI versus JOGESHWAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 08-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
.Ajit Ii umar Pa/it 
v. 
'late of Wtst Bmgal 
A.1,,angar, J, 
1962 
No1lf111her, a. 
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
impug11ing the jurisdiction of the special court and 
we have no hesitation in repelling that argument . 
The result is that the appeal fails and is dis-
missed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
CHIMANDAS BAGOMAL SINDHI 
ti. 
JOGESHWAR AND ANOTHER 
I 
(P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J\.. N. WANCHOO, 
K .. c. DAS GUPTA and j. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Letting of Houses and Rent Control-Provisions for oollec-
tion of information and letting of accomodation-Construction 
of-Displaced person-Meaning-Central Provinces and Berar-
Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, els. 22, 23, 24, 
24A, 13, 2(2). 
The respondent had let out his house to a firm against 
whom he obtained permission from the Rent Control Authority 
to terminate the tenancy on the ground of arrears of rent. 
Meanwhile, the tenant intimated to the respondent by telegram 
that he had vacated the premises, but prior to the receipt of the 
telegram, the appellant had applied to the Additional Deputy 
Commissioner that since the premises were likely to fall vacant, 
they should be allotted to him as he was a displaced person, and 
provisional allotment was made in his favour and he continued 
to be in possession since then. The respondent then moved for 
the cancellation of the said allotment on the ground that he 
needed the premises for his own use, but the allotment was con-
firmed in favour of the appellant by the Additional Deputy 
Commissioner. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the 
High Court for cancellation of the said order, which was set 
aside and the case was remanded for disposal in accordance 
with law ; against this the appellant filed a Letters Patent 
Appeal. On remand the earlier order was confirmed by the 
Additional Deputy Commissioner, against which the respondent 
filed another writ petition in the High Court. The Letters 
., 
-, 
. j 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
969 
Patent Appeal and the subsequent w.it petition were heard to-
1962 
gether and the High Court allowed the writ petition and set Chimandas Bagomal 
aside the order of allotment in favour of the appellant on the 
Sindhi 
ground that as soon as it appeared that the appellant had a 
v. 
place of business of his own, he ceased to he a displaced person 
Jogeshwar 
within the meaning of cl. 23( 1) and the other relevant clauses. 
Held,, that cl. 23(1) refers to the persons in the specified 
categories and empowers the Deputy Commissioner to make an 
order of allotment in their favour. There are no terms of Iimi· 
tation qualifying the said persons and the scheme of the relevant 
provision does not seem to contemplate any such limitation. 
Clause 23(1) as well as els. 24 and 24A do not necessarily exclu· 
de the cases of persons specified in them on the ground that the 
said persons already have an accommodation of their own and 
the High Court was in error in assuming that the provisions of 
els. 23(1), 24 and 24A impliedly postulated that the persons be· 
longing to the respective categories specified by them could 
receive allotment only if they had no previous accommodation 
of their own. 
Held, further, that after remand the Additional Deputy 
Commissioner did not properly appreciate the scope and effect 
of the provision contained in the relevant clause and he took an 
unduly narrow view of the limits of the enquiry which h.e was 
bound to hold as a result of the remand order and that has 
vitiated his final conclusion. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 201/60. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated June 18, 1958, of the Bombay High 
Court, Nagpur, in Misc. Petn. No. 391 of 1956. 
M.O. Setalvad, 
S. N. Andley, 
and 
appellant. 
Attorney-General for India, 
Rameshwar Nath, 
for the 
S. N. Kherdekar, N. K. Kherdakar and A. G. 
Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent No. 1. 
1962. November 8. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
1962 
lim.ndlllh Bag(, m rzl 
Sintlhi 
v. 
Jogeshwar 
;aiendragadkar, J. 
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal raises a 
short question about the construction of clauses 23, 24 
and 24-A in The Central Provinces and Berar Letting 
of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter 
called 
the Order). 
Jogeshwar s/o 
Parmanand 
Bhishikar (hereinafter called the respondent) owns a 
house known as the Bhishikar Bhawan in Nagpur. 
Block No. 2A had been let out by hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.