1. It appears that the premises in question belong to Yusuf Khan, Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in which a tenant had been inducted. The said respondent persuaded the tenant to vacate the premises because he had become invalid and crippled and wanted to occupy the said premises along with his widowed sister and daughter of the said widowed sister to look after him. The tenant vacated the premises. The Collector in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 rejected the claim of the said respondent to occupy the premises in question and allotted the same to Respondent 2. Thereafter a writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent which was allowed. This appeal has been filed against the said order.
2. From the aforesaid Act, it appears that whenever an accommodation has fallen vacant, prior information has to be given to the Collector. The first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 39 is as follows:
"Provided that if the landlord has within fifteen days of the date of the order issued under sub-section (1) stated that he needs the accommodation for his own occupation, the Collector or the authorised officer, shall, if satisfied after due inquiry that the accommodation is so needed, permit the landlord to occupy the same."
3. In view of the aforesaid proviso, it is open to the Collector if satisfied after due inquiry to permit the landlord to occupy the premises which has fallen vacant. In the present case, the claim of the respondent to occupy the premises in question was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the widowed sister and daughter of the widowed sister have not been included in the definition of "members of the family". We are not able to appreciate as to how the Collector was required to consider as to whether the widowed sister and the daughter of the widowed sister shall be deemed to be the members of the family of the respondent for the purpose of exercise of the power under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 39. Under the said proviso, the Collector has to examine whether the need of the landlord is genuine. That finding has to be recorded by the Collector on due inquiry about the need of the landlord. Although the order of the Collector has not been brought on record but from the High Court order, it appears that the Collector had not recorded the finding in respect of the need of the respondent for the premises on the ground that he had become invalid and crippled and because of that he wanted to occupy the premises in question along with his widowed sister and daughter of the widowed sister. The matter would have been different if he had claimed the premises in question for his widowed sister and the widow's daughter. In this background, the order of the Collector had rightly been set aside by the High Court and the said order of the High Court does not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
4. We direct the Collector of Indore to evict Respondent 2, Chintamani Bai Verma by 30-6-1996 to whom the allotment has been made by the Collector.