SURYANARAYAN Vs. SHYAM LAL VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision, filed under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'act') against the order dated 18-11-2002, passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior in Case No. 22/99-2000x90/7, calls in question the impugned order, mainly on the ground that "the bona fide requirement" as defined under Section 23-A (a) in respect of "member of family" as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Act, does not include grand children and further, in Para 8 of the impugned order the reasons given by the Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as "authority") are not based on materials on record. It is also contended that the applicant was not afforded a proper opportunity to defend his case. It is also urged that even the map of the premises was not considered in right perspective.

(2.) ON the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the non-applicant/landlord that the order does not suffer from any infirmity, and the bona fide requirement of the non- applicant and his family was taken into account and then it was found that the accommodation available to the non-applicant was insufficient to meet the requirement of a large family consisting of 19 members. A judgment of this Court Kailash Chandra v. Vinod and Ors. , reported in 1994 JLU Volume 43 page 277, was sought to be relied upon to contend that bona fide requirement also includes requirement of a growing family. It is further contended that the accommodation vacated by tenant Kirpal Das is non-residential in nature and therefore, could not have met the requirement. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment Gurucharan Singh v. Premabai Shrivastava, reported in 2001 (3) M. P. H. T. 87 (CG) = 2001 (II) MPJR Chhattisgarh 73, to contend that an accommodation of non- residential nature can not be counted for a requirement of residential accommodation. It is also contended that another accommodation of one room having been vacated by another tenant Bhagwan Das during pendency of revision being very small in size is only used for kitchen, of a son of the non-applicant. Further cross-examination of Suryanarayan (D. W. 1), the applicant herein, reveals that he did not visit the second floor of the accommodation belonging to the landlord, said to be situated at Daulatganj.

(3.) THIS revision has been preferred under Section 23-E of the Act which on reproduction reads like :-