POONAM MEENA Vs. MEERA PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 23.08.2011 passed in Case No. 10/RCA/2009-10 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Capital Project, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent being a widow, a specified landlady defined under Section 23J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act'), approached the Rent Controlling Authority by way of filing an application under Section 23A of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner, a tenant in the demise residential premises, on the ground that the respondent was issueless lady, her husband has died and she was not keeping good health and she was in need of a family member to look after her. It was contended by the respondent in her application that the petitioner was introduced by a neighbour to the respondent and believing that the petitioner will also look after the old aged lady like the respondent, in good faith, a room was let out to the petitioner by the respondent. However, the respondent in the later stage started feeling that she is not to depend on such a tenant, rather it would be appropriate for the respondent to seek assistance of her own brother and for the said purposes, the respondent was in bona fide need of demise premises so that she may accommodate her own brother in the said premises for the purposes of looking after the respondent.

(2.) The said application filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply and it was contended that such a plea raised by the respondent was not correct. Allegations were made that sufficient accommodation was available in the said suit house to accommodate the brother of the respondent in case any assistance was needed by the respondent. It was contended that the application has been filed with malafide intention to get the suit accommodation vacated so that the same may be let out to other persons on a higher rent. The Rent Controlling Authority recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plea of bona fide need was made out, therefore, passed the impugned order of eviction of the petitioner, which is sought to be challenged in this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent has adduced the evidence and in her own statement, she has admitted this fact that there is other accommodation available in the very same suit house but she is not intending to let it out to the petitioner. She has categorically contended that she is not willing to keep such a person as a tenant in her house, who is creating nuisance. From this, it is contended that there was no bona fide need for getting the suit house vacated by eviction of the petitioner and since this particular piece of evidence is not taken into account by the Rent Controlling Authority, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the Rent Controlling Authority has not considered the aspect that the bona fide need was for the purposes of accommodating the brother of the respondent and, therefore, since admittedly the brother of the respondent is not living jointly with the respondent, such a need was not made out in view of the definition of the member of the family as given in Section 2(e) of the Act. It is contended that these aspects have not been looked into by the Rent Controlling Authority, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.