VINOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. PUSHPALATA PARUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 21-11-2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Dhamtary in case No. 12-A/90(8) of 98-99 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 23(B) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for ejectment has been allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non- applicant filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority claiming that she being widow comes under Special Category of the landlords under Section 23-J (III) of the Act. The applicant Vinod Jain is tenant and is carrying on the business of hotel in the premises. The portion is a required by the landlady for bonafide need for carrying on her own business. The tenant filed reply and submitted that he is tenant on monthly rent in the disputed premises since last 31 years. There is no bonafide need of the landlady to start her own business but it is a pretext. In fact she wants to sell the disputed premises. Therefore it was prayed that the application of the applicant for eviction be rejected.

(3.) The landlady examined A.W. Pushpalata Paruthi, A.W. Subhash Chandra, A.W. Vinod Khandelwal. The tenant examined N.A.W. Vinod Jain, N.A.W. Jagat Singh, N.A.W. Ramchandra, N.A.W. Champalal and N.A.W. Anand Prakash Dixit.