LEELAWATIBAI Vs. RADHAKISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been received by us by virtue of order of BrOrs. Shri S.K. Seth, J. dated 1.3.2007, who noticed various conflicting decisions of Single Bench of this Court on the point that whether an application for eviction submitted under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') would continue to be maintainable after the death of landlord of the specified category described under Section 23-J of the said Act.

(2.) Short facts leading to the reference are that Leelawatibai, widow of Ghanshyamdas alongwith her sons submitted an application for eviction under Section 23-A of the Act with allegations that the suit premises is owned by herself and her sons, which is in occupation of the Defendant-non-applicant as tenant on rent @Rs.40/-p.m. The house comprising the suit premises belonged to Ghanshyamdas. After his death, it devolved upon the applicants including Leelawatibai. Various Ors. portions of the said house are occupied by four Ors. tenants. It is stated in the application that the suit premises was let out for residential purpose to the non-applicant, which is required bonafide by the applicant for the residence of herself and Ors. members of her family which include sons, daughter-in-laws and grand children. Applications for eviction of Ors. tenants have also been submitted for bonafide residential need.

(3.) Non-applicant submitted his reply admitting therein his status as tenant in the suit premises. However, it was contended that the suit premises was owned by Jethalal, who happened to be father of Ghanshyamdas and Devidas. Legal heirs of Devidas and Ghanshyamdas are co-owners and the eviction proceedings at the instance of Leelawatibai, widow of Ghanshyamdas and her sons alone is not maintainable. Alleged bonafide need was also refuted with an allegation that the same is not genuine and the applicants have Ors. suitable accommodations for their residence.