MOHANLAL Vs. HARGUNDAS MOOLCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -tenant has directed this Revision against the Order dated 31.12.98 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A/90(7) -27/96 thereby the learned RCA allowed the application filed by the non -applicant landlord u/s 23A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act') and passed the order of eviction of the applicant from the suit accommodation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that non -applicant Hargundas Moolchandani is the landlord and the owner of the house No. 16 situated in Street No. 3 B.K. Sindhi Colony Indore. In the ground floor of the said house there are six shops given on rent to different persons. Out of the said shops one of the shop is in occupation of the applicant on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/ -. In the application, it is stated that the applicant tenant without the permission of the landlord has inducted a sub -tenant Sandeep Choudhary in the said shop. It is also stated that the non -applicant landlord is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore and after his retirement he wants to start a stationary and books ' shop in the premises which is in occupation of the applicant and for this purpose he bonafidely requires the suit shop for his alleged need of starting a stationery and books shop as he has no other accommodation of his own in the city of Indore in his possession for the alleged need. On the aforesaid facts he filed an application before the RCA, Indore u/s 23 -A of the Act for eviction of the applicant and delivery of the vacant possession of the suit shop.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for applicant contended that from the evidence of the parties available on the record, the bona fide requirement of the suit shop by the non -applicant landlord for starting the stationery and book selling shop is not established. The learned counsel also contended that the non -applicant is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore who took voluntary retirement before he attained the age of superannuation. As such, he is not covered under the definition of the landlord as defined u/s 23 -J of Chapter 3A of the Act. As such, the application filed by the non -applicant under the special provisions of Sec. 23 -A of the Act was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in case of MA. Raju v. Smt. Gomti Bai [1990 MPACJ SN 25], Smt. Dhanapali v. Gourishankar Goyal [1994(2) MPWN 223] and Mohandas v. Devandas [1996(2) AIRCJ Vol. 7 -128].