LexMADHUKAR S/O M. LAPALIKAR versus D.V. HINGWE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c MADHUKAR S/O. M:LAPALIKAR v. D.V. HINGWE & ORS. DECEMBER 4, 1986 [SABYASACHI MUKHAR.11 AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949, clause 25, scope of-Applicability of the summary procedure of eviction-Case of Appellant both an evictee and a Government servant - Burden of Proof The appellant who was residing at House No. 546 situated at Dhantoli area at Nagpur was evicted from the said premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of its landlord. Therefore he became an "evicted person" within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Central Province and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949. Being a Government employee he applied to the D House Allotment Officer that he may b"llotted House No. 406/l under clause 24A of the said Control Order simultaneously indicating that he was an "evicted person" also. The premises came to his m:cupation on the orders passed hy the House Allotment Officer in 1960. Th<: appellant retired from service on 1.5.1978. On 10.9.1979 one Vijay Mude., one of the respondents, moved an application before the House Allotment Officer for vacating the appellant from E the premises on the ground that he has retired. The said application under clause 25 of the Rent Control Order was •mntested by th~ appellant that it was not applicable as he was an "evicted person" under clause 2(2) of the Control Order. Having lost before all courts, the appellant came by way ofspecialleave. F Allowing the appeal, the Court, HELD: 1.1 On the scheme of the different clauses it was only when ~ preson was granted an allotment as a gov.=ment servant, then and then only can clause 25 be invoked for his eviciton. In other cases, the clause 13 will be relevant. The summary procedure of claus1' 25 could only be available in case of recovery of possession given to a person as a government servant on his G retirement. Indeed the provisions are pec11liar. Even if a government servant goes on earned leave or is transferred enn then he becomes disentitled to remain in possession of the premises in question and would be liable to be · evicted by virtue of clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order. Being drastic in nature, therefore, one who seeks allotee',; eviction has to establish that the, allotment to the person whose eviction i!i sought was made in the capacity H 402 MADHUKAR v. D.V. HINGWE 403 contemplated under clause 25. Clauses 23, 24A and 25 of the Rent Control Order deal with three independent categories of persons and the summary procedure on proper construction of clause 25 was applicable only where allotment is given to a tenant as a tenant. Clause 25 would not operate, if a Government servant happened to be an evictee and an allotment is made in that capacity. In the instant case, on a construction of the various documents and the evidence adduced in this appeal under these proceedings, it is clear that allotment was given to the appellant as.an evictee who happened to be at the relevant time a government servant. Therefore, on his retirement from the government service, he did not cease to be an evictee and did not come within the mischief of clause 25 of the said Control Order. 408G-409A-409H-410B] 1.2 Even if allotment is made to a person who is both an evictee as well as a government servant then if one of the grounds of the order namely, that he was a government servant ceases to exist on retirement, the other reason ov.erates i.e. he was an evictee and still continues to be an evictee then the allotment would continue. In this case even if it he held that it cannot be conclusively determined that the order of allotment was made in favour of the appellant only on the ground that the appellant was an evictee but it was made also on the ground that the appellant was a government servant, and after his retirement the other ground namely the allottee still being an evictee remained valid it can be sustained. [410 C, F] State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. B.K. Takkamore & Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 583, applied. : CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1769of1981 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.1980 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil App In. No. 952 of 1980. V.A. Bobde, S.D. Mudliar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the Appellant. U .R. Lalit, A.K. Sanghi, Prakash Khanzodi and Ravinder Bana for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.