KAMAL KUMAR TALREJA Vs. ASHA BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/tenants have filed this revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA), Bhopal allowing the application filed under Section 23-A of the Act directing ejectment of the tenant from the suit accommodation. The facts which are not in dispute that the non-applicant is a widow and also a retired employee. Her husband died on 13-3-2004 and she attained the age of superannuation on 31-3-2006. The applicant No. 1 was the tenant of a shop ad-measuring 200 sq. ft. on ground floor situated in House No. 172, Green Park Colony, Berasiya Road, Bhopal. At the time of filing of the application seeking eviction the rate of rent was Rs. 1500/- per month as per the Gregorian Calendar.

(2.) It is stated in the application by the non-applicant herein that she wants to start her own business of the "ready-made garments" in the said shop to which no other alternative reasonably suitable accommodation within the township of Bhopal is available. It is also stated that the applicant No. 1 has allowed applicant No. 2 as sub-tenant and parted with the possession to him illegally on rent. After giving a notice by filing this application prayer was made seeking eviction from the suit accommodation.

(3.) The defendants on receiving the notice of the case and after granting leave filed written statement stating that the tenancy in the suit shops is w.e.f. 1981 since the life-time of the husband of the non-applicant. After retirement of the non-applicant, the tenancy was renewed. At present, he is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. It is said that the suit shop is not required bonafide as she is getting sufficient pension on attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, the requirement is not bonafide and the suit has been filed only to enhance the rent. It is further said that one of the shop has been sold by her after attaining the age of superannuation, therefore, also the requirement cannot be said to be genuine.