OMPRAKASH Vs. SATYANARAYAN CHOUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 8-7-2010 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A-90(7) 46/09, whereby eviction petition filed by Petitioner under Section 23A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred as 'the Act') was dismissed, present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that Petitioner filed petition under Section 23A of the Act alleging that Petitioner is the owner of a house situated at Nandlal Pura Sabji Mandi, Indore bearing municipal house No. 5, Ward No. 44. It was alleged that Respondent is in occupation of the suit accommodation as tenant @ Rs. 350/- per month since last thirty years. Further case of the Petitioner was that Petitioner, who is the senior citizen aged 73 years is also a handicapped person. It was alleged that Petitioner requires the suit accommodation bonafidely for the residence of himself and also for the members of his family. It was alleged that the accommodation, which is in occupation of Petitioner is not sufficient to meet out the requirement of the family. It was alleged that there are five members in the family of the Petitioner, which includes Petitioner, his wife, daughter-in-law and two grandsons. It was alleged that Petitioner is in occupation of one room on the ground floor and two rooms on first floor and a rain shed on second floor. It was alleged that Petitioner is having no other alternative accommodation of his own from where requirement of the Petitioner can be fulfilled. It was further alleged that since the Petitioner is aged 73 years and wife of the Petitioner is aged 65 years and the Petitioner is handicapped and wife of the Petitioner is not in a position to climb the stair case, therefore, Petitioner requires the suit accommodation bonafidely. It was prayed that order of eviction be passed. The eviction petition was contested by the Respondent after seeking leave to defend. It was not disputed that Respondent is in occupation of the suit accommodation as tenant. However, it was denied that Petitioner requires the suit accommodation bonafidely. It was denied that Petitioner is having no other alternative accommodation from where the requirement can be fulfilled. It was prayed that petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) Shri S.C. Shrivastava, learned Counsel for Petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the only ground on which the petition was dismissed is that Petitioner requires the suit accommodation for the need of daughter-in-law and grandson, who are not the members of family. It is submitted that this ground cannot be allowed to sustain. Learned Counsel for Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter S.R. Brothers v. Smt. Tara Bai,1989 ACJ 71 , wherein the landlord was ailing landlady and there was nobody to look after, this Court held that if the landlady calls her daughter, who is married to look after her and to stay with her there is nothing wrong and it is the requirement of Plaintiff herself and not of the daughter and son-in-law. Further reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Makbool s/o Abdul Latif v. Abdul Hafij s/o Abdul Rajak,2005 2 ACJ 94 , wherein in a suit for eviction on genuine requirement where the major son was married having his own family, this Court held that requirement of the family is genuine. Further reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Mona Shrivastava v. Smt. Pan Bai Raikwar, 2006 2 MPHT 393 : 2006 MPWN 221, wherein the landlady was the woman, who was looked after by the daughters with her, this Court held that accommodation was required for the need of the landlady and not for the daughters. Cm the strength of aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and order of eviction be passed against the Respondent.