SATISH KUMAR SINHA Vs. GURPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30-5-2006 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Durg (for short 'the R.C.A.') in case No. 10A-90/2004-05 whereby and whereunder eviction petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed, the instant revision under Section 23-A of the M.P. & C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under:

(2.) Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order on the following grounds:

(3.) Per contra, Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant would submit: petitioner failed to establish the fact that he is a retired Central Government employee inasmuch as the document filed by him was not even exhibited and placed reliance upon the dicta of Apex Court in the cases of Indrasen Jain v. Rameshwardas, 2005 9 SCC 225, Amar Nath Agarwalla v. Dhillon Transport Agency, 2007 4 SCC 306, Dharmarajan and others v. Valliammal, 2008 2 SCC 741 and Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Rampal Singh Bisen, 2010 4 SCC 491. It was further contended that the R.C.A., considering increase in the rate of rent of the suit shop by the petitioner after his retirement, availability of alternative accommodation for the purpose of his practice as Doctor, by drawing presumption the petitioner in order to let the suit shop on enhanced rent and/or to sell the suit shop after seeking its vacant possession, the eviction application has been filed and by holding the need of the petitioner is not bona fide, has rightly dismissed the eviction application and this Court may not interfere in the above order in exercise of its revision jurisdiction under Section 23-E of the Act.