UPICA HANDLOOM LTD. Vs. TECHCHAND KESHWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 23 -E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, the tenant seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order dated 12.7.1995 passed in Case No. 60/RCA/92 by the learned Rent Controlling Authority directing eviction of present applicant from the suit premises.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the applicant, the evidence led by the non -applicant landlord falls short in proving the alleged bonafide need and as there is no one to support the statements of the plaintiff -non -applicant, the Rent Controlling Authority ought to have dismissed the petition. Criticising the statements of the non -applicant/landlord, it was contended that the non -applicant stated that he had taken the training regarding the business from his relation and he would obtain the goods on credit from the said relation but neither the details of the said relation has been given nor the said relation has been examined in support of the plaintiff's contention, therefore the Court below could not rely upon the solitary testimony of the non - applicant. Learned counsel for the non -applicant, on the other hand submits that as the present applicant was proceeded ex parte it was not necessary for the present non -applicant to lead any further evidence because on the strength of the uncrossed testimony of the non -applicant, the Rent Controlling Authority could certainly grant an order in favour of the landlord.

(3.) BEFORE entering into the factual controversy, it is necessary to see the order dated 16.9.1994 and the subsequent orders..On 16.9.1994, the present applicant alongwith the affidavit filed certain documents, thereafter the case could not be taken up on 3.9.1994 as the Presiding Officer was busy in Election Duty. On 10.10.1994 yet another application under Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed. On 24.10.1994, 7.11.1994 and 1.12.1994 the matter could not be heard as the Presiding Officer was otherwise busy. On 22.12.1994, the learned Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application filed under Section 151, C.P.C. inter alia observing that the application could not be allowed. On 2.1.1995 the learned Rent Controlling Authority recorded that on 28.12.1994 an application under Order 9 Rule 7, C.P.C. was filed. Copy of the application was supplied to the counsel for the non - applicant and the matter was fixed for consideration. For one reason or the other, the matter could not be taken up to 6.4.1995.