DURGA AHIRWAR Vs. HARSHIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (26.04.2012) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.09.2011 passed in R.C.A. Case No.02/A-90/2009-2010 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Sagar, by which the application filed by the respondent No.1 for grant of an order of eviction against the petitioner has been allowed.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to filing of this revision are that the respondent No.1 claimed himself to be a specified landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act'), moved an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Sagar, for grant of order of eviction against the petitioner under Section 23-A of the Act. It is contended in the said application that the respondent No.1 is an ex serviceman retired from the Indian Army and he is having no other place of residence in the city of Sagar. The demise premises was let out to the petitioner on 31.05.1986. The rent of the said house is not being paid to the respondent No.1 by the petitioner. A notice demanding the rent and for eviction was issued on 04.09.1997 by the respondent No.1 but since nothing was done, on the other hand the rent of the house was enhanced, the respondent No.1 was left with no option but to move the application for eviction of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is intending to get the house reconstructed after demolition of the demise premises for the purposes of using the same for his own residence.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the Rent Controlling Authority gravely erred in not considering the evidence available on record. It is contended that in the statement the petitioner has categorically proved the fact that respondent No.1 was having sufficient accommodation in his possession and, therefore, he had no bonafide need of the house demised to the petitioner for the purposes of residence. The need indicated in the application of the respondent No.1 was imaginary and such facts were proved on making suggestion in the cross-examination. The fact remains that even after 1997, there was no need to get the house vacated from the petitioner and this itself is enough to demonstrate that the need was not bonafide or genuine as explained by the respondent No.1 in his application and as such the application was to be dismissed. However, these particular aspects have not been considered by the Rent Controlling Authority and the order of eviction has been passed.