PARIVAR SEWA SANSTHA Vs. PADMAWATI DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision filed u/s 23-E of the M.P (C.G) Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been filed against the order dated 16.5.2005 passed in Case No.6/90(8) 2000-2001 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (C.G) (hereinafter referred to as the RCA). By the said order, the aforesaid authority has allowed the application for eviction filed by the landlady u/s 23-A(b) of the said Act on the ground of "bonafide requirement" for the purpose of starting hotel business (restaurant) of her major son.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the landlady filed the aforesaid application before the RCA on 19.4.2001 inter alia pleading that she is the owner of the non-residential tenanted accommodation described in the map annexed to the application and the said accommodation is under occupation of the non-applicant, petitioner herein, who is paying the rent @ Rs.7700/- per month. She further pleaded that the accommodation which is situated in the first floor of Dixit Complex, Baijnathpara, Raipur, is bonafidely required by her for the purpose of starting hotel business (restaurant) of her eldest son namely Amitabh Dixit. She further pleaded that this accommodation is suitable for the said business and there is no reasonably suitable alternative accommodation of the applicant in the township of Raipur for starting such a business. She also pleaded that on 18.11.2000, a notice showing her bonafide requirement was sent by Registered Post to the petitioner/non-applicant whereby the tenancy was terminated w.e.f. 31.1.2001. Since after termination of the tenancy by the aforesaid notice, the possession was not delivered, an order for eviction be passed against the non-applicant. The tenant, after obtaining leave to defend, filed its written statement denying the contentions of the applicant It was contended that the said premises was given to them on monthly rent by the husband of the applicant and it was agreed between them that there would be increase of 15% in the monthly rent after every 3 years and the tenancy will continue. Except that, no other condition was agreed between them. It also pleaded that after the death of original landlord since in the month of Dec. 1999 this applicant also agreed to give the accommodation on monthly rent of Rs.7700/- for a further period of 3 years, she cannot claim eviction before the said period. It specifically denied about the bonafide requirement of this premises by the applicant. It further pleaded that since the applicant wants to increase the rent and she had also offered to sell the premises to them, the question of bonafide requirement of the applicant does not arise. It prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) AT the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlady has not proved that she was the absolute owner of the premises so as to retain a petition u/s 23-E of the Act. She has also not proved that she requires the premises bonafidely, for starting a restaurant business of her son. He further submitted that it has also not been proved that the applicant was having no reasonably suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of her own to start the said business of her son. He also submitted that as per material on record, it would appear that the RCA has not applied its mind to the statutory requirements and has superficially recorded a finding of bonafide need. He also submitted that the R.C.A. did not notice the mandatory provisions of section 23-G of the Act and has not written a single word in this regard. On these counts, he prayed for setting aside the order.