http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MANSARAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S. P. PATHAK AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1983

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1239            1984 SCR  (1) 139  1984 SCC  (1) 125        1983 SCALE  (2)1027  CITATOR INFO :  R          1987 SC1986  (34)  RF         1988 SC1841  (8)

ACT:      Central Provinces  and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order,  1949 Cls.  22,  23,  and  25  Occupation  of premises  by  Government  servant  under  cl.  23(2)  on  an assurance from landlord-Conditions to be satisfied before he can be evicted for contravention of cl. 22(2).

HEADNOTE:      The appellant who had taken the premises in question on lease while  he was  serving as an employee of the Telephone Department, continued  to be in possession of the same after his retirement  in 1967.  Respondent No. 1 who was allegedly in need  of accommodation,  filed an  application before the House Allotment  Officer praying  for allotment  of the said premises in  his favour on the ground that the appellant had occupied the  premises in  contravention of cl. 22(2) of the Central Provinces  and Berar  Letting  of  Houses  and  Rent Control Order,  1949 and  that  respondent  No.  4  who  had inherited  the  premises  from  the  original  landlord  was conspiring with  the appellant  by letting  him continue  to live in  the premises.  Respondent No.  4, after having once appeared through  advocate, withdrew  from the  proceedings. The appellant  contended that  he had  not  contravened  any provision of  the Rent  Control Order as he had occupied the premises on  the assurance  given by  the then landlord that the house  was being  permitted to be occupied in accordance with cl.  23(2) thereof,  that the deceased landlord who had tried to  obtain  possession  of  the  premises  during  his lifetime on the ground of bona fide personal requirement had failed in  the attempt  and that he had been accepted as the tenant  even  after  his  retirement.  The  House  Allotment Officer rejected  the contention  and directed the appellant to deliver  possession of  the premises  to respondent No. 4 holding that  the appellant  was liable to be evicted as the letting out  of the  premises to him by the landlord and his occupation of the same in 1954, were in contravention of cl. 22(1) (b)  and cl.  22(2) respectively  of the  Rent Control Order and  further, that  having occupied the premises while holding an  office of  profit under  the Union  of India the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

appellant  was   not  entitled  to  continue  to  remain  in occupation  of   the  premises  after  his  retirement  from service. The  High Court  having  dismissed  in  limine  the Special Civil  Application filed  by him under Art. 227, the appellant approached this Court.      Allowing the appeal,      HELD:1. According  to cl.  22(1) of  the C.P. and Berar Letting of  Houses and  Rent Control Order, 1949, a landlord is under  a statutory  duty to  intimate the  Collector  any existing or impending vacancy in the premises of which he is the landlord. The object underlying the provision is to make 140 residential accommodation  available to a specified class of persons mentioned  in cl. 23 which includes a person holding an office of profit under the Union or State Government or a displaced or  an evicted person. The Collector can allot the premises in  respect of  which he has received an intimation of vacancy  under  cl.  22,  to  anyone  belonging  to  this specified class  and none  else. The very enumeration of the class would  show that  these are persons who cannot be left to  the  vagaries  of  the  law  of  demand  and  supply  of residential accommodation.  It may  be that,  at  any  given point of time, no one from the specified class may be on the waiting list,  and therefore  cl. 23(2) permits the landlord to let  out such  premises to  any person  if, after 15 days from the  date of intimation of vacancy to the Collector, an order of  allotment is  not served  upon the  landlord. As a sequel to  the right  to obtain  allotment on  the ground of being the holder of an office of profit under Union or State Government, a  corresponding obligation  is cast  by cl.  25 upon such person to vacate the premises as soon as he ceases to hold  the office  or the post which enabled him to obtain the order  of  allotment.  The  legal  liability  of  giving intimation of  vacancy is squarely on the landlord and if he has given such intimation and the statutory limit of 15 days for making  an allotment order has expired, the landlord can proceed to  let out  the  premises  to  anyone.  In  such  a situation, the  only duty  cast on  the tenant is to seek an assurance from  the landlord  that the  premises  are  being permitted to  be occupied in accordance with cl. 23(2). [145 E-H; 146 A-B; 147 B-C]      In the  instant case  the order  of the House Allotment Officer  is   conspicuously  silent  on  the  most  relevant question why  the allegation of assurance put forward by the appellant was  not examined  by him  and why it was rejected sub silentio.  It was  incumbent upon him to enquire whether the deceased  landlord had  given intimation  of vacancy and whether any  allotment order  had  been  issued  within  the period  of  15  days  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  such intimation.  The  non-application  of  mind  by  the  quasi- judicial authority  to this  relevant point goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the order. It was obligatory upon respondent No.  4, who  was the successor-in-interest of the landlord, to  prove that  no such  assurance had  ever  been given to  the  appellant.  Instead,  the  respondent  No.  4 remained absent.  Even assuming  that the  landlord  gave  a false assurance  in 1954  to the appellant, if the appellant bona fide  relied upon  such assurance  and it was not shown that the  appellant was  in league  with  the  landlord,  he cannot be  accused of entering the premises in contravention of cl.  23(2). The  High Court  was in error in rejecting in limine the petition under Art. 227. The points raised by the appellant merited  a  reasoned  decision  or,  at  least,  a speaking order  briefly indicating  why the  contentions put forward by  the appellant  did not find favour with the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Court. [148 G; 147 D; 148 H; E;  147 F-G; 143 G-H]      2. In  order to  attract cl.  25  which  obligates  the holder of  an office of profit to vacate the premises on his ceasing to  hold the office of profit, it must be shown that he entered  the premises under an order of allotment made by the Collector either under cl. 23 or under cl. 24-A. [149 B]      In the  instant case,  in the  absence of  an allotment order, it  was not  open to  the House  Allotment Officer to draw an  inference that,  the premises  were allotted to the appellant because  he was  holding an office of profit. [149 D] 141      3. Where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has  to   be  exercised  in  a  reasonable  manner  and  the reasonable exercise  of power  inheres its exercise within a reasonable time. [150 F]      In  the   instant  case,  power  is  conferred  on  the Collector by  cl. 28  to see that the provisions of the Rent Control  Order,   which  disclose   a  public   policy,  are effectively implemented  and, therefore,  if he comes across information that  there is  a contravention,  he is  clothed with adequate  power  to  set  right  the  contravention  by ejecting anyone who comes into the premises in contravention of the  provisions. No limitation prescribed in this behalf. But, even  if the  House Allotment Officer were to reach the affirmative conclusion  that the  initial entry of appellant into the  premises 22  years back  was an unauthorised entry and that  failure to  vacate premises  till nine years after retirement was  not proper,  yet it  was not obligatory upon him to  pass a peremptory order of eviction in the manner in which he  has done.  It was  open to  him not  to evict  the tenant. [150 E-F; G-H]      Murlidhar Aggarwal  & Anr.  v. State  of U.P.  &  Ors., [1975] 1  S.C.R. 575  and State  of Gujarat  v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors.,[1970] 1 S.C.R. 335; referred to.      4. The  appellant had  entered the premises in 1954 and there had  been numerous  proceedings between  him  and  the deceased landlord;  but no  one had ever raised the question whether  the   appellant  had   entered  the   premises   in contravention of  cl. 22(2).  This would permit an inference that the  then landlord  had accepted  the appellant  as his tenant and  his tenancy  did not  suffer from any infirmity. Respondent No.  4 who  is the  successor in  interest of the deceased landlord  did not  raise any  controversy about the occupation of  the premises  by the  appellant and  rent was accepted without  question before and after the death of the original landlord. [149 G-H; 150 A-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1262 (N) of 1978.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  4th July,  1978 of  the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Special Civil Application No. 1957 of 1977.      G. L. Sanghi, B. Datta, V. A Boby Shyam Mudaliar and B. P. Singh for the Appellant.      B. R. Agarwal. P. G. Gokhale and Miss Vijayalakshmi for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J. Appellant Shri Mansaram son of Shri Chanduram Sharma was serving in the telephone office at Nagpur and was thus 142

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

holding an  office of  profit under  the Union  of India. He took on  lease premises  on a  monthly rent  of Rs.  75  per month, more  particularly described  in the application made to the  House Allotment  Officer, Nagpur by first respondent Shri S.  P. Pathak,  from the then owner of the premises one Shri Basantrai Sharma. He continued to be in possession even after his  retirement from  service in  1967. Shri Basantrai Sharma died and there is a dispute between respondents 3 and 4 and  Shri Prabhakar  about succession to the estate of the deceased Shri  Basantrai Sharma. Respondents 3 and 4 claimed to be  the legatees  under a will of deceased Shri Basantrai Sharma.  Respondent   No.  1  Shri  S.  P.  Pathak  made  an application to House Allotment Officer, Nagpur registered as Miscellaneous Case  No. 51/A-71(2)/76-77 against the present appellant Mansaram  alleging that the appellant had occupied the premises  involved in  the dispute  in contravention  of sub-cl. (2)  of Clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of  Houses  and  Rent  Control  Order,  1949  (’Rent Control Order’  for short), in that he occupied the premises to which  Chapter III  of the  Rent  Control  Order  applies without obtaining an order under sub-cl. (1) of Clause 23 or Clause 24 or without an assurance from the landlord that the premises are  being permitted  to be  occupied in accordance with sub-cl.  (2) of Clause 23. To this petition, respondent 4  Smt.  Usha  Rani  N.  Sharma  was  also  impleaded  as  a respondent but  after having once appeared through advocate, she did  not prefer to remain present along with her counsel and the  House Allotment  Officer proceeded  against her  ex parte. In  the application  made by  Shri S.  P. Pathak, Ist respondent on  December 7, 1976, it was in terms stated that the appellant  Shri Mansaram Sharma was a Government servant employed in  the telephone  department  at  Nagpur  and  the appellant has now retired from service and therefore, is not entitled to  retain the  demised premises.  It  was  further alleged that the former owner of the premises Shri Basantrai Sharma  has  died.  The  premises  have  been  inherited  by respondent 4 Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma and she and the tenant Mansaram Sharma  have conspired  together and  are violating the provision  of law  by letting  Shri Mansaram  Sharma  to continue to  live in  the premises.  It was  further alleged that the  appellant Shri  S. P.  Pathak was badly in need of premises and therefore, the premises may be allotted to him.      Appellant Shri  Mansram Sharma  appeared  and  filed  a written statement inter alia contending that he occupied the premises on  the assurance  given by  the then landlord Shri Basantrai Sharma that 143 the house  is being  permitted to  be occupied in accordance with sub-cl. (2) of Clause 23. It was further contended that in a proceeding under the Rent Control Order, that late Shri Basantrai  Sharma,   the  deceased   landlord,  had   sought possession of  the premises  on  the  ground  of  bona  fide personal requirement  but he  had  lost  the  same.  It  was further alleged that Shri S. P. Pathak is a near relation of Shri Basantrai  Sharma and  that he  has been put forward by Smt. Usha  Rani N.  Sharma for seeking a collusive order. It was further  alleged that  it is  incorrect to  say that  he occupied the house under any allotment order. It was further stated that  since his retirement in July, 1967, he has been accepted as tenant and therefore, no proceeding can be taken against him  under Clause  28 of  the Rent Control Order for alleged contravention of clause 22.      The House  Allotment Officer  held that  Shri Basantrai Sharma let  out the  premises to  the appellant  in the year 1954 in  contravention of  clause  22(1)  (b)  of  the  Rent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

Control Order  and the  appellant occupied  the premises  in contravention of  clause 22(2) of the Rent Control Order and therefore, he  was liable  to be evicted under clause 28. It was  further  held  that  the  appellant  had  occupied  the premises when  he was  holding an office of profit under the Union of  India and  now that  he has  retired,  he  is  not entitled to  continue in the premises and therefore, also he is liable  to be  evicted. Accordingly,  the House Allotment Officer by his order dated November 2, 1977 gave a direction to the  appellant to  vacate the premises within a fortnight from  the   communication  of  the  order  and  deliver  the possession of  the premises  to Smt.  Usha  Rani  N.  Sharma failing which action will be taken under clause 28(1) of the Rent Control Order.      Appellant filed a Special Civil Application No. 1957 of 1977 before  the Nagpur  Bench of  the Bombay  High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.      At the  outset, we must confess that the learned Single Judge was  completely in  error injecting the petition under Art. 227  of the  Constitution  in  limine  because  various points raised  by the  appellant are  such  that  atleast  a reasoned decision  by the High Court was a must or atleast a speaking order briefly showing why these contentions did not find favour  with the  High Court.  At one  stage,  we  were toying with  the idea  to remit the matter to the High Court but 144 that would  merely be  further  delaying  the  already  over delayed proceedings.      Order 22 of the Rent Control Order reads as Under:           "22(1)-Every landlord  of a  house situated  in an      area to which this Chapter extends, shall-      (a)  within seven  days from  the date of the extension           of this  chapter, if  the house  is vacant on such           date; or      (b)  within seven  days from  the  date  on  which  the           landlord becomes finally aware that the house will           become  vacant  or  available  for  occupation  by           himself or  for other  occupation on  or  about  a           specified date;  give intimation  of this  fact to           the Collector of the district in which the area is           included or such other officer as may be specified           by him, in the Form given in the Schedule appended           to this  Order, and  shall not  let or  occupy the           house except  in accordance with sub-clause (2) of           clause 23."           (2) No person shall occupy any house in respect of      which this  chapter applied except under an order under      sub-clause (1)  of clause  23 or  clause 24  or  on  an      assurance from  the landlord  that the  house is  being      permitted to  be occupied in accordance with sub-clause      (2) of clause 23." Clause 23 provides that within fifteen days from the date of receipt of  intimation  of  vacancy  under  Clause  22,  the Collector may  order the landlord to let the vacant premises to any person holding an office of profit under the Union or the State  Government or  to any person holding a post under the Madhya  Pradesh Electricity Board or to displaced person or to  an evicted  person and thereupon not withstanding any agreement to  the contrary, the landlord shall let the house to  such   person  and   place  him  in  possession  thereof immediately, if  it is  vacant or  as  soon  as  it  becomes vacant. There  is a proviso to clause 23 which provides that simultaneously while  giving intimation  of the  vacancy, if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

the landlord  intimates to  the Collector  that he needs the house which  has fallen  vacant or  is likely to fall vacant for his  occupation, the Collector shall, if satisfied after due enquiry that the house is so needed, permit the landlord 145 to occupy  the same.  This proviso  is not  relevant for the present purpose.  Sub-clause (2)  of Clause 23 provides that if no  order is  passed and  served upon the landlord within the period  specified in sub-clause (1), he shall be free to let the  vacant house to any person. Clause 25 provides that where a  person is  allotted the  premises  and  is  put  in possession thereof  by an order under clause 23 or 24 A, his tenancy shall  stand terminated  amongst others  on the date from which he ceases to hold an office of profit under Union or a State Government etc. and such person shall vacate such premises within seven days of such date and the landlord and the tenant  shall give  the intimation  about  the  same  as prescribed in  clause 22 to the Collector in respect of such premises. There  is a  proviso which  confers power  on  the Collector to  extend the  tenancy by  a period not exceeding four months.  Clause 28  confers power  on the  Collector to effectively carry  out the  duty and  obligation cast on him under Chapter III. Clause 28 reads as under:           "28.(1)-The Collector  may take  or  cause  to  be      taken such steps and use or cause to be used such force      as may, in his opinion, be reasonably necessary for the      purpose of  securing compliance with, or for preventing      or rectifying  any contravention  of this  Order or for      the effective exercise of such power."      The relevant  provisions noticed hereinbefore will show that the  landlord is under a statutory duty to intimate the existing or impending vacancy in the premises of which he is the landlord  to the  Collector (clause  22(1)). The  object underlying the  provision is  to make  available residential accommodation to  the Collector  for allotting the same to a specified class  of persons set out in clause 23. This class comprises any  person holding  an office of profit under the Union or State Government or any person holding a post under the Madhya  Pradesh Electricity Board, or a displaced person or an  evicted person.  The Collector can allot the premises in respect of which he has received an intimation of vacancy under clause  22, to anyone belonging to the specified class and none  else. The very enumeration of the class would show that these are persons who cannot be left to the vagaries of the law  of demand  and supply  of residential accommodation and they  are required  to be  assisted in  this behalf  for efficient performance  of  public  service  or  one  who  is roofless on  account of  being a displaced person or evicted person. It  may be  that at  any given point of time, no one from class for 146 whose benefit  power is  conferred on the Collector to allot vacant premises  may be  on the  waiting list and therefore, sub-clause (2)  of clause 23 permits the landlord to let out such premises in respect of which he has intimated a vacancy to any  person if  within fifteen  days  from  the  date  of intimation  of   vacancy  to  the  Collector,  an  order  of allotment is  not served  upon the  landlord. As a sequel to the right  to obtain allotment on the ground of being holder of office  of profit  under  Union  or  State  Government  a corresponding obligation  is cast upon such person to vacate the premises as soon as he ceases to hold office or the post which enabled  him to obtain the order of allotment. To give full effect  to these  provisions, power is conferred on the Collector to  take appropriate  action to enforce provisions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

of clauses 22 to 27.      The application  made by  Ist  respondent  Shri  S.  P. Pathak on  December 7,  1976 to  the House Allotment Officer complained of  appellant  not  vacating  the  premises  even though he has ceased to hold the office of profit. There was not the  slightest complaint that when the appellant entered the premises  in 1954,  either he  did it  under an order of allotment made  by the  Collector or  surreptitiously or  in league with  the then  landlord Shri  Basantrai Sharma or in violation of the mandatory requirement of Clause 22. Yet the House Allotment  Officer proceeded  to enquire as to whether clause  22(1)  (b)  and  22(2)  were  contravened  when  the appellant entered the premises in 1954.      The first  question that should engage our attention is whether the  House Allotment  Officer was  right in  holding that there  was any  contravention of  clauses 22(1) (b) and 22(2) of  the Rent  Control Order at the time when appellant entered the  premises in  1954. It  is  necessary  to  focus attention on the contention of the appellant in this behalf. He contended  in the  written statement  that he entered the premises on an assurance from the landlord that the premises were being  permitted to be occupied in accordance with sub- clause (2)  of clause  23, which permits the landlord to let out the premises to whomsoever he considers proper if he has not received  an allotment  order from  the Collector within fifteen days  from the date of the receipt of the intimation of vacancy  under clause  22. No  record was produced by the applicant before  the House  Allotment Officer  whether Shri Basantrai Sharma, who was then the landlord and the owner of the house  intimated to  the Collector that a portion of the house which  was then  in his  occupation was intended to be let out. There is not one word in the order of the 147 House Allotment  Officer as to how and in what circumstances Shri Basantrai  Sharma, the  then owner let out the premises to the  appellant. If  a landlord assures an incoming tenant that he  has complied  with the provisions of clause 22, the tenant can  enter the  premises without  being  charged  for having contravened  sub-clause (2)  of clause  22. The legal liability of giving intimation of vacancy is squarely on the landlord as  provided by  clause 22.   If  the landlord  has given  intimation   of  vacancy  under  clause  22  and  the statutory limit of 15 days for making an allotment order has expired, the  landlord on his own can proceed to let out the premises in  respect of  which he has sent the intimation of vacancy to  anyone he chooses to accept as tenant. In such a situation, the  only duty  cast on  the tenant is to seek an assurance from  the landlord  that the  premises  are  being permitted to  be occupied  in accordance with sub-clause (2) of clause  23. The  appellant specifically contended that he entered the premises on such an assurance from the landlord. In this  state of  pleading, it was incumbent upon the House Allotment Officer  to  enquire  whether  deceased  Basantrai Sharma had  given intimation  of  vacancy  and  whether  any allotment order was issued within the period of 15 days from the date  of the  receipt of the intimation of it. If it was found that deceased Basantrai Sharma had given an intimation of vacancy  and that no allotment order was issued within 15 days from  the receipt  of the  same and  that  he  gave  an assurance to  the appellant  that  the  premises  are  being permitted to  be occupied  in accordance with sub-clause (2) of clause  23, obviously even if the quondam tenant occupied the premises  without an  allotment order,  he could  not be charged with  contravention of  sub-clause (2) of clause 23. Assuming  that   landlord  Basantrai  Sharma  gave  a  false

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

assurance in  1954 to  the appellant  that the  landlord had sent an intimation of vacancy and that no allotment order is secured within  fifteen days  from the date of intimation of vacancy and  accordingly  false  assurance  was  given,  the tenant if  he bona  fide relied upon the assurance emanating from the  landlord and is not shown to be in league with the landlord, he  would none the less be protected and cannot be accused of  entering premises  in  contravention  of  clause 23(2). The  House Allotment  Officer has recorded no finding on this  important point and therefore, on this short ground his order is liable to be set aside.      We however find a greater infirmity in the order of the House Allotment  Officer. In  the absence  of  an  allotment order  being  produced  by  the  appellant,  three  possible surmises are permissible; 148 They  are:   (1)  Shri   Basantrai  Sharma  never  sent  the intimation of vacancy, (ii) that even though he did send the intimation of  vacancy  and  yet  he  did  not  receive  any allotment order within the prescribed period, and (iii) that he surreptitiously  let out  the premises  to the  appellant after giving him a false assurance that he has complied with clause 22. If the allotment order was in fact issued, a copy of it  would be with the appellant as well it must have been sent to  the landlord.  There would be an office copy in the file of the case. No such allotment order is forthcoming. In the absence  of an  allotment order,  before  the  appellant could be  charged with contravention of clause 22(2), it was incumbent  upon  the  House  Allotment  Officer  to  enquire whether Basantrai  Sharma had sent any intimation of vacancy to the  Collector as required by clause 22(1) (b). If it was not sent,  could his successor in interest take advantage of his own wrong when Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma who claims to be the inheritor  of the  premises deliberately remained absent to help  the applicant  Shri S. P. Pathak, who is alleged to be a  near relation  of the  husband of  Smt. Usha  Rani  N. Sharma and  who is  keen to  enter the  premises by alleging contravention of clause 22(1) (b) nearly 22 years before the commencement  of   the  proceedings.   Further  the   tenant contended that  deceased landlord  gave him  an assurance as required by clause 23(2). In the light of this contention it was  obligatory  upon  the  landlord  or  his  successor  in interest to  prove that  no such assurance as claimed by the appellant was  ever given  to him.  Shri  S.P.  Pathak,  the applicant  claims   to  be  a  stranger.  Original  landlord Basantrai  Shrama   was  dead   by  the   time  the  present proceedings commenced.  Her successor  in interest Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma remained absent. Appellant gave evidence that he was  given the assurance that the premises were being let out to  him in  accordance with  sub-clause(2) of clause 23. And sub-clause(2)  of clause  22 protects  a tenant  against charge of  unauthorised occupation  if he enters premises on the assurance  as aforesaid as provided in clause 22(2). The order made  by the  House Allotment Officer is conspicuously silent on  this most relevant question why the allegation of assurance put  forward by  the appellant was not examined by him  and  why  it  was  rejected  sub  silention.  The  non- application of  mind by  the quasi judicial authority to the most relevant  point which  goes to  the root  of the matter completely  vitiates   the  order  of  the  House  Allotment Officer, because  once the allegation of assurance canvassed for on behalf of the appellant is accepted, he is not liable to be  evicted on the ground that he entered the premises in contravention of clause 22(2). 149

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    There is  a still further infirmity in the order of the House Allotment  Officer. Admittedly,  the appellant entered the premises  in 1954.  He was then serving in the telephone department which  would permit an inference to be drawn that he was  holding an  office of  profit in the Union of India. But in  order to attract clause 25 of the Rent Control Order which obligates  such holder  of the  office  of  profit  to vacate the  premises on  his ceasing  to hold  the office of profit, it  must be shown that he entered the premises under an order  of allotment  made by  the Collector  either under clause 23  or clause 24A. Existence of an order of allotment under clause  23 or clause 24A in favour of a person holding an office  of profit  under the  Union of India or the State Government is  a sine  qua non  before the  obligation under clause 25 can be fastened upon him to vacate the premises on ceasing to  hold the  office of  profit which enabled him to get an  order of  allotment in his favour. In the absence of an allotment  order, it  is not  open to the House Allotment Officer to draw an inference that the premises were allotted to the appellant because he was holding an office of profit. If there is no order of allotment issued to the appellant on the ground that he is holding an office of profit. The House Allotment Officer  had no  jurisdiction to  call upon him to vacate the  premises on  the short ground that he has ceased to hold  the office  of profit.  The House Allotment Officer has in terms held that as the appellant has retired in 1967, and therefore  he is  not entitled to continue to occupy the premises. This  line of reasoning proceeds on the assumption that there  was initially an order of allotment in favour of the appellant on the ground that he was holding an office of profit, the  assumption being not borne out by the facts. In the absence  of an  allotment  order,  the  House  Allotment Officer has  no jurisdiction  to call  upon the appellant to vacate the  premises on  the short ground that he has ceased to hold the office of profit.      What is  stated hereinbefore is sufficient to quash and set aside the order of the House Allotment Officer. However, there is  one more  aspect of  the matter  which  we  cannot overlook. The  appellant entered the premises in 1954. There have been  numerous proceedings  between him  and  the  late Basantrai Sharma  who let  out the premises to the appellant but no  one ever  raised the  question whether the appellant had entered  the premises  in contravention of clause 22(2). Till Basantrai  Sharma died,  no one  raised the controversy about the  entry of  the appellant  in the premises as being unauthorised or  in contravention  of clause  22.  Basantrai Sharma in his life time tried to 150 obtain  possession   of  the  premises  from  the  appellant alleging grounds  available to  him under  the Rent  Control Order other  than unauthorised  entry. This  would permit an inference that  Basantrai Sharma  accepted the  appellant as his  tenant   and  his  tenancy  did  not  suffer  from  any infirmity. After  Basantrai Sharma  died, her  successor  in interest one  Smt. Usha  Rani N.  Sharma did  not raise  any controversy about  the occupation  of the  premises  by  the appellant. One  Mr. S.P.  Pathak, a  total stranger has come forward to  complain about  the unauthorised  entry  of  the appellant in  the premises. The unauthorised entry according to the  appellant was in the year 1954. Appellant retired in 1967. Basantrai  Sharma was alive in 1967. If appellant came into the  premises because  he  was  holding  an  office  of profit,  obviously  Basantrai  Sharma  would  not  miss  the opportunity to  evict the appellant because he was otherwise also trying  to do the same thing. Rent was accepted without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

question from  the appellant  by Basantrai  Sharma till  his death and  thereafter. Could he be at this distance of time, thrown  out  on  the  ground  that  his  initial  entry  was unauthorised.  To   slightly   differently   formulate   the proposition, could  the initial unauthorised entry, if there be any, permit a House Allotment Officer, 22 years after the entry, to  evict the  appellant on  the short ground that he entered the  premises in  contravention of  clause  22(2)  ? Undoubtedly, power is conferred on the Collector to see that the provisions  of the  Rent Control Order which disclosed a public  policy   are  effectively  implemented  and  if  the Collector therefore,  comes across information that there is a contravention,  he is  clothed with  adequate power to set right the  contravention by  ejecting anyone  who comes into the premises  in contravention  of the  provisions. But when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in  a reasonable  manner. Exercise  of power  in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable  time. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one would stand aghast that a landlord to some extent  in pari  delicto could  turn the tables against the person a who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. In such a situation, even though the House Allotment Officer was to  reach an  affirmative conclusion  that  the  initial entry 22  years back  was an  unauthorised  entry  and  that failure to vacate premises till 9 years after retirement was not proper,  yet it  was not  obligatory upon  him to pass a peremptory order  of eviction  in the manner in which he has done. In  such a  situation, it  would be open to him not to evict the  appellant. In  this connection,  we may  refer to Murlidhar Agarwal 151 and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. wherein one Ram Agyan Singh who came  into possession  of premises  without an  order of allotment in his favour as required by sec. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control  of Rent  and Eviction  Act,  1947,  was permitted to  retain the premises by treating his occupation lawful and this court declined to interfere with that order. No doubt  it must  be confessed that sec. 7A conferred power on  the   District  Magistrate   to  take   action   against unauthorised occupation  in contravention  of the provisions of the  U.P. (Temporary)  Control of  Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, but  there was  a proviso to the section which enabled the District Magistrate not to evict a person found to be in unauthorised occupation,  if  the  District  Magistrate  was satisfied that there has been undue delay or otherwise it is inexpedient to  do so. There is no such proviso to clause 28 which confers  power on  the  Collector  to  take  necessary action for  the purpose of securing compliance with the Rent Control  Order.  But  as  stated  earlier,  where  power  is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable  manner and  the reasonable  exercises of power inheres its  exercise within  a reasonable time. This is too well  established   to  need  buttressing  by  a  precedent. However, one  is readily  available in  State of  Gujarat v. Patel  Raghav   Natha  &  Ors.  In  that  case  Commissioner exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under sec. 211 of the Bombay  Land Revenue  Code which  did not  prescribe any period   of    limitation   for   exercise   of   revisional jurisdiction.   The    Commissioner   exercised   revisional jurisdiction one  year after  the Collector  made the  order which was sought to be revised. The High Court set aside the order of  the  Commissioner.  In  the  appeal  by  State  of Gujarat, this Court declined to interfere holding inter alia that the  revisional power  in  the  absence  of  prescribed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

period of  limitation must  be exercised within a reasonable time and  period of  one year  was held to be too late. This aspect must  be present  to  the  mind  of  House  Allotment Officer before  just rushing  in on  an  unproved  technical contravention  brought   to  his  notice  contrived  by  the successor in interest of the deceased landlord, and evicting the appellant 22 years after his entry and 9 years after his retirement on  the short  ground that  his entry in the year 1954 was in contravention of clause 22(2).      Having examined  all the  aspects of the matter, we are satisfied that  the order  of the  House  Allotment  Officer suffers from numerous 152 infirmities and is unsustainable and must be quashed and set aside as  also the  order of  the High  Court dismissing the Special Civil  Application No. 1957 of 1977 preferred by the present appellant.  Accordingly this  appeal succeeds and is allowed and  the application made by the first respondent to the House Allotment Officer is dismissed with no order as to costs throughout. H.L.C.                                       Appeal allowed. 153