RAMKISHORE Vs. GYANCHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed by the applicant/tenant under Section 23E of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") being aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2006 passed in Case No. RCA 3/A-90(l)/2003-2004 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Tikamgarh allowing the application of the Respondent filed under Section 23A(b) of the Act for eviction of the applicant from the shop described in such application situated in House No. 12 of Ward No. 10, at Tikamgarh.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the Respondent herein filed aforesaid application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Tikamgarh under Section 23A(b) of the Act contending that the applicant herein being his tenant is in occupation of one shop described in the application situated at Tikamgarh @ Rs. 500/- pm for non-residential purpose. As per further averments the Respondent being retired government servant from the post of teacher is in bona-fide genuine need of such shop to start his business with his sons namely Arvind and Sanjay, for which they do not possess any other suitable accommodation of their own in the township of Tikamgarh. The disputed shop is more suitable and convenient for them. With respect of the alleged business the Respondent had sufficient fund and means. In spite giving the notice dated 4.6.2003 to the applicant for vacating the shop, the same has not been complied with by vacating the premises. With these pleadings the aforesaid application for eviction was filed. In pendency of the case by amendment it is pleaded that his son Sanjay has vacated the tenanted shop in which he was running his business and other son Arvind has got assignment of a contract teacher in the State government for three years but still the alleged need is subsisting as the Arvind after three years on completing his aforesaid assignment on vacating the premises shall start the business.

(3.) In reply of the applicant, it is stated that disputed shop was taken long before on tenancy @ Rs. 6/- pm, the same has been gradually increased up to Rs. 400/- pm and not Rs. 500/- pm. The Respondent running his business in his own shop while his one son is doing the clothes business and another son is running the travelling business by operating the Tata Sumo vehicle. The available alternate vacant shops lying with the Respondent have not been disclosed by way of pleadings m the application. Subsequently by amendment it is also pleaded that on account of heavy competition in the market said Sanjay after closing his cloth's shop of Tikamgarh started such business in the rural areas by roaming in different villages through vehicle while the further need of the other son who has got the job of contract teacher could not be deemed to be bona-fide need of the Respondent. It is also stated that in pendency of the petition some vacant shop lying with the Respondent is also let out by him to some person on tenancy. In spite it the Respondent is still in possession of some vacant shops of his own, with these pleadings the alleged need of the Respondent regarding disputed shop is denied and prayer for dismissal of the application is made.