In order to appreciate the point, it is necessary to bear in mind that the appellant previously was residing in another house since 1941 at House No.
This document appears in the Paper Book as a companyy.
A companyy of the certified companyy of Record Room Register was also produced by the appellant.
The same reads as follows Application No.
The order sheet further recorded that on 16th February, 1960, Dr. Shirali had informed that she had handed over the possession to the appellant as per orders of allot ment.
The said order had been challenged by the appellant by a petition filed before.the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the meantime the appellant was dispossessed by virtue of the order of eviction which was companyfirmed by the High Court.
The said document indicated that the officer companycerned had directed registration of the case and for issue of a provi sional order of allotment and one companyy to be addressed to the landlord on address given, another companyy pasted on the house.
Thereafter on 27th January, 1960, the Additional Deputy Collector, Nagpur, companymunicated to the appellant at P.M.G. Office, Nagpur that the premises in question has been provisionally allotted to you under clause 24 A of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1948 subject to further orders by the Addi tional Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
In the said letter, the appellant stated that one Dr. Shirali occupied the premises in ques tion which belonged to one Shri N.H. Ray.
This is also a companyy which appears in the Paper Book and which was produced by the appellant.
The appellant challenged the same in this Court and special leave was sought for.
Document No.
33/a/71 6 A of 59 60.
3615/79 Office of the Collector, Nagpur Name of the Register Rent Controller, Nagpur.
What happened to that letter numberone knows.
Since then the appellant had been evicted from the premises which was in his occupation and has numberresidential accommo dation of his own.
20 B which was in occu pation of one Dr. Shirali with whom the appellant had inti mate relations and who was knowing the evictee position of the appellant herein number applicant therein stated that the appellant came to know from them that they wanted to shift to some other place for their family reasons.
So both of them had approached the Rent Controller, Nagpur and submit ted an application and thereafter the order had been made.
Written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant wherein he stated after dealing with the facts that the appellant was previously staying at premises No.
There is a companyy of Misc.
This is regarding the allotment of the premises in question.
As Shri Shirali proposed to vacate the premises in near future, he had agreed to let it out to the appellant in case permission was granted to him to that effect.
He wants to stay on in the premises.
The short question that fails for companysideration in this case, is, whether the summary procedure companytemplated by clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order was applicable for obtaining possession from the appellant.
The House Allotment Officer has made a report.
He, therefore, prayed that the said house might be allotted to him in his own name in view of his difficulties and priorities.
1769 of 1981 From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.1980 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln.
Such permis sion was granted against the appellant in respect of the said house on 23rd May, 1955.
The landlord of the appellant sued for permission to evict the appellant from the said premises on the grounds of bona fide need of the landlord.
The Order sheet numberes that this was an application from Dr. Shirali who proposed to let out the house belonging to Shri H. Ray of Calcutta.
Certified companyy of Record Room Register Register No.
10 Form C Record from register for Kuliyat Papers Rule 6 .
He made an application for allotment of the premises in dispute, namely 406/1 in Nagpur under clause 24 A under the said Control Order.
In the Special Leave Peti tion on 16th December, 1980, this Court had directed resto ration of possession and had further directed the House Allotment Officer to make a report.
The order further recorded that numberobjection was received from landlord as invited.
The appeal in respect of the same was dismissed by an order dated 26th November, 1955.
Special Leave was granted and this appeal was expedited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the said letter the appellant described himself after stating his name Clerk P.M.G. Office, Nagpur and a registered evictee.
The Additional District Magistrate and House Allotment Officer, Nagpur passed an order dated 13th March, 1980 and ordered the appellant to vacate the premises in question within one month from the date of the order.
This sentence was underlined.
She had proposed to let it out to the applicant, employee of the P.M.G. Office.
The Southern portion was sold to the respondent D.V. Hingwe and one M. Lapalikar became the allottee of the premises in question in 1960.
952 of 1980.
A. Bobde, S.D. Mudliar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the Appellant.
The High Court by its judgment and order upheld the eviction order.
On 10th September, 1979, there was an application by one Shri Mude who is one of the respondents in this appeal stating that the appellant was a government servant and had retired two years back and should vacate the premises in dispute.
To the same effect there is a companyy of a letter from Dr. Shirali to the Additional Collector, Nagpur.
It is alleged that a numberice of sale of the premises in question was given in the name of one Tapan Roy in the local newspaper.
But one Bratindranath Roy de scribing himself to be the holder of the power of attorney on behalf of the heirs of late N.H. Ray is alleged to have sold the premises in question.
406/1 standing on plot number Sheet No.
On or about 25th January, 1960, Shri Lapalikar, the appellant herein, wrote a letter to the Additional Collec tor, Nagpur.
R. Lalit, A.K. Sanghi, Prakash Khanzodi and Ravinder Bana for the Respondents.
Serial No.
The alleged transferee or alienee of the property from the alleged heirs of N.H. Ray fights this appeal in this Court after the allotment has been cancelled by the House Allotment Officer in favour of the appellant, Lapalikar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. The story behind this appeal, though number very relevant, reveals interesting facts.
The companytention of the appellant was that he was given the premises in question as an evictee though his description included that he was a government servant.
One H. Ray of Calcutta either abandoned or disappeared or died since about 1929 and his house being the premises in dispute in Nagpur lay abandoned and his heirs were number known, letters written by authorities in Nagpur and by the tenants in Nagpur to the address N.H. Ray, Calcutta naturally remained unanswered.
The appellant retired indisputably on 1st May, 1978 and the House Allot ment Officer was moved by an application filed by one Vijay Mude, the re spondent herein for taking action under clause 25 of the said Rent Control Order.
He was a Central Government employee being an employee of the Post and Telegraph De partment of the Government of India.
The companyy of the landlord was addressed to N.H. Ray, Calcutta which was naturally returned to the sender for full address.
But in this appeal this Court is companycerned with a very short question whether the appellant was granted allotment as a government employee or evictee in terms of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949 hereinafter called the said Rent Control Order .
546 situated at Dhan toli area at Nagpur.
