LAWS(SC)-2004-12-6

INDRASEN JAIN Vs. RAMESHWARDAS

Decided On December 17, 2004
INDRASEN JAIN Appellant
V/S
RAMESHWARDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th November, 2003 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby a Civil Revision filed by the respondent-landlord against the judgment of the Rent Control Authority, Indore was allowed. The Rent Control Authority, Indore had dismissed the landlords petition for eviction filed under Section 23- A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) Briefly the facts are : the respondent claiming to be owner of the suit premises sought eviction of the appellant-tenant therefrom, on the ground of his personal bona fide need. The suit premises comprises of a shop of the size of 20.8 feet x 10.5 feet besides a small ante-room. The rent of the premises is Rs. 500/- per month. The appellant is a medical practitioner and is carrying on his practice in the suit premises. The respondent sought eviction of the appellant on the ground that he required the premises to start his own business of selling books and stationery. It was pleaded that the landlord did not own any other premises suitable for business purposes. The eviction petition was filed under the summary procedure contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act. The respondent-landlord claims to be a retired Government servant in order to bring himself within the definition of landlord contained in Section 23-J of the Act. The landlords falling within the meaning of landlord in Section 23-J are entitled to avail of the summary procedure for eviction of tenants. The summary procedure is contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act which was introduced by way of amendment in 1983 to enable certain categories of landlords to have eviction proceedings disposed of expeditiously. The relevant provisions of Chapter IIIA are reproduced as under :

(3.) It is the case of the respondent that he retired as Principal of a private Government aided school on 30th November, 1994. According to him, he was earlier a Government servant and a few years before his retirement he was sent on deputation to the private Government aided school as Principal. As such he continued to be a Government servant till the date of his retirement. The suit property is said to have been purchased by the respondent from one Babulal Baheti vide a Sale Deed dated 7th December, 1999. The eviction petition was instituted on 24th May, 2001. Before instituting the eviction petition the respondent had issued a notice dated 1st February, 2001 calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises.