JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE order dated 8-9-1986 passed by the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur in Revenue Case No. 22/a-71 (6-A) of 1982-83, directing these proceedings to be filed has been challenged in this petition.
(2.)THE controversy encompassed in this petition is rather interesting. The factual positions giving rise to this litigation are not much disputed. One Ereikel son of Benjamin Samuel, the original respondent-1 in this petition, was occupying House No. 323 situated in Ward No. 65 Mohan Nagar, Nagpur. He was the Government servant and as such, these tenements were alloted to him by the House Allotment Officer sometimes in 1958 under Clause 23 (1) of the C P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order ). Samuel retired from Government service sometimes in 1974. However, he continued to be in possession thereafter. The house was subsequently purchased by the present petitioner Shri K. V. Ramna Rao on or about 1984. One Shamrao Darpe filed an application before the House Allotment Officer contending that the house has fallen vacant due to retirement of Samuel and it may be allotted to him (Shamrao) under Clause 23 (1) of the Rent Control Order. This application came to be registered as Revenue Case No. 22/a-71 of 1982-83. During the pendency of these proceedings the present petitioner K. V. Ramna Rao put in his appearance as an intervener. On hearing all the sides concerned, the House Allotment Officer passed an order on 6-4-1985 to the effect that due to retirement of Samuel he is not entitled to continue in occupation of the premises, that his occupation is in breach of Clause 25 of the Rent Control Order and that he should vacate the premises within 15 days of the communication of the order failing which action under Clause 28 of the Rent Control order would be initiated for compliance of the order.
(3.)THIS order of the House Allotment Officer came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 804 of 1985. In that petition, however, the validity of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order was not challenged. The High Court on hearing both sides set aside the order of the House Allotment Officer and remanded the matter back to the authority with a direction that he should decide as to under what provision the allotment order was made in his favour. On remand, the House Allotment Officer heard both the parties and passed the order on 16-7-1986. The House Allotment Officer held that the allotment was made under Clause 23 (1) of the Rent Control Order, that the allottee on his superannuation ceased to be a tenant and that he was liable to be evicted with in 15 days This order came to be challenged before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 1478 of 1986. In this petition even the validity of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order was challenged. However, at the stage of admission this petition came to be withdrawn on 31st July, 1986. The withdrawal was unconditional.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.