ANIL AMBWANI Vs. VIMLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the tenant questioning the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the impugned order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur. The respondent landlady preferred an application under Section 23-A of the Act for the petitioner's eviction from the suit premises situated at Shukrawari Bazar within the municipal corporation area of Raipur bearing House No. 290/20. The said non residential premises was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 625/- after executing rent note on 1-6-2004 for the period till 30th May, 2005. According to the landlady, tenancy came to an end on 30th May, 2005, as the tenancy was not extended thereafter. However, in spite of repeated oral requests, the tenant failed to vacate the premises even after informing that the landlady needs the premises for her personal need. The legal notice dated 2-5-2005 was served on the tenant seeking delivery of vacant possession, however, the tenant did not comply with the request made in the notice. It was stated in the application that the landlady, an old aged widow, needs the premises for the business which will be carried along with her daughter-in-law Smt. Usha Waretwar, widow of late Ashok Waretwar and her grand son and to satisfy the said need, she has no reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Raipur town.

(2.) After seeking leave to defend, the tenant filed his reply, inter alia, pleading that he is in possession of the premises since 1983 and not from June, 2004 as pleaded by the landlady. It was further stated that the landlady wanted to increase the rent from Rs. 625/- to Rs. 2,000/-, however, on the tenant's refusal, the instant eviction petition has been preferred only to harass him and that prayer for eviction for the need of someone else is not maintainable. In para-11 of the reply, it was stated that the landlady's pleading that she needs the premises to carry on the business along with her daughter-in-law and grand son is denied and that she has an alternative accommodation which is available in the same suit premises, it was also stated that her grandson is in Government service, therefore, the need is not bonafide.

(3.) To substantiate her prayer for eviction. the landlady examined herself and her witness Laxman Rao Channawar. On the other hand, the tenant examined himself and his witnesses namely, Mohd. Salim, Budhram Nirmalkar and Chandulal Ambwani. The landlady proved the rent note dated 1-6-2004 as Lx.-P/1, its reply by the tenant as Ex.-P/2 and the legal notice as Ex.-P/ 3.