RAJKUMAR Vs. KASHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under S. 23 -E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'] against the eviction order under section 23 -A (b) of the Act.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner Rajkumar is a tenant of respondent Smt. Kashibai in a shop, having an area of 7'x 11' in house No. 70/1, Nanda Nagar, Main Road, Indore at a monthly rent of Rs. 385/ -. The Respondent has an adjacent shop of the same area in her possession. The Respondent's case is, that she bonafide requires the suit shop for the purpose of carrying on kirana business. Her daughter, who is a divorcee would assist her in carrying on this business. She would demolish the wall between the two small shops and start her Kirana business in the shop which would have an area of 14'x 11'.

(3.) IN this revision, it has been argued that the alleged requirement of the respondent is not bonafide, as she has not started kirana business in the shop which is already in her possession. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion, that the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. The respondent is a widow. She requires the suit accommodation for carrying on kirana business. No doubt, she has already got a shop of 7' x 11' in her possession, but, she has established that kirana business cannot be carried on properly in such a small shop. She cannot be asked to squeeze herself in the small shop, when, she owned another adjacent shop in occupation of the tenant. The learned counsel for petitioner has cited the decision of Supreme Court in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [AIR 2001 (SC) 2655] in which, it has been held, that -