SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.S. Anand and D.P. Wahhwa, JJ.

C. A No. 4332/1997. D/d. 27.8.1998.

Prakash Chand - Petitioner

Versus

Ratan Chand Saravgi - Respondent

Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Section 23E(2) - Revision - High Court dismissed the revision petition by a non-speaking order - Held - In absence of reasons Supreme Court deprived from appreciating the circumstances which weighted with the High Court in dismissing the revision petition - Such manner of disposing writ petition was not proper since certain arguable points had been raised in the revision and particularly that was the only remedy available to the tenant under the statute - Order of High Court not sustainable.

[Para 6]

ORDER

A.S. Anand, J. - The respondent, a retired Government servant, filed an eviction suit against the appellant before the Rent Controlling Authority at Jabalpur. Various grounds for eviction were pleaded. It was the case of the respondent landlord that the building had been given on rent for a composite purpose in the sense that while the ground floor had been rented out for non-residential purposes, the upper portion had been rented out for residential purposes. Vide order dated 23-6-1996, the Rent Controlling Authority allowed the eviction petition, holding that the respondent landlord had established his bonafide requirement of the premises for his own use and for the use of his widowed daughter-in-law and directed eviction of the appellant from both portions of the dismissed premises. The tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the following order on 12-12-1996:

''After hearing the counsel on both sides and on perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in this review petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed."

2. This appeal by special leave calls in question the impugned order of the High Court.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

4. Section 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 contains a special provision for eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bonafide requirement for a specified category of landlords. Section 23-C provides that a tenant would not be entitled to contest such an eviction petition except under specified circumstances. The tenant is obliged to seek leave to defend and is entitled to contest the petition only after such leave is granted to him. In the instant case, the petition had been filed under Section 23-A and leave had been granted to the tenant under Section 23-C of the Act. The appellant tenant had, while challenging the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, raised various grounds in the revision petition filed in the High Court, including a ground relating to composite tenancy and the need of the landlord, not being bonafide.

5. Under Section 23-E of the Act, no appeal is competent from any order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A under which the eviction petition had been filed. Sub-section (2) of Section 23-E dealing with the revisional jurisdiction provides:

"23-E. (2) The High Court may, at any time 'suo motu' or on the application of any person aggrieved, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Rent Controlling Authority, call for and examine the record of the case pending before or disposed of by such Authority and may pass such order in revision in reference thereto, as it thinks fit and save as otherwise provided by this section, in disposal of any revision under this section, the High Court shall, as far as may be, exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as it does for disposal of a revision under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908 (V of 1908) as if any such proceeding of the Rent Controlling Authority is of a court subordinate to such High Court."

6. Thus, it is seen that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which may be exercised either suo motu or on an application filed by any person aggrieved, entitles the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Rent Controlling Authority, to call for and examine the record and make an appropriate order. The impugned order of the High Court (supra) does not disclose any reasons whatsoever, which weighed with it to dismiss the revision petition by a non-speaking order. The absence of reasons has deprived this Court to appreciate the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the revision petition. Giving of reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its conclusions is much too obvious. Providing of reasons not only lends clarity to the order but also minimises the chances of any arbitrariness and enables the higher forum to test the correctness of the reasons. We are not happy with the manner in which the revision petition was disposed of, since certain arguable points had been raised in the revision petition and particularly, because that was the only remedy available to the tenant under the statute, an appeal being not permissible. The impugned order of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the revision petition to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.

7. We request the High Court to dispose of the revision petition expeditiously. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. There is no order as to costs.

Appeal Allowed.