PARAKH PRINTERS INDORE Vs. KAMLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT, who is the non-applicant in the Court below has come up in revision under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act against the final order of eviction, dated 10-6-1999, passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, in Case No. A-90 (7)/4/98. Facts of the case in short are these.

(2.) PETITIONER is a tenant of the suit accommodation of which the respondent is a landlady. The respondent being a widow falls within the specified category of the landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the Act and thereby entitled to seek protection of Section 23-D of the Act so far as existence of her bonafide need is concerned. In other words, the respondent being a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J ibid has a statutory right to ask this Court to draw a presumption in her favour that the need that she has pleaded for seeking a decree of eviction is bonafide and genuine.

(3.) THE respondent (landlady) filed an application under Section 23-A of the Act claiming eviction of the petitioner (non-applicant/tenant) on the ground that she (respondent) requires the suit accommodation for starting a restaurant/eating house. It was alleged that her major son who is presently serving in one private store would manage the entire show alongwith the respondent. She also said that loan for this purpose will also be availed of. She alleged that she has no other reasonably alternative accommodation available in city where the intended business for her survival as also for setting of the family can be accomplished. The defence of the petitioner/tenant was that of denial. According to non-applicant, he (N. A No. 2) was not the tenant but his father Bhagchand was the tenant and hence, in the absence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the application must fail. It was also contended that the application made on behalf of the applicant is not maintainable but one Shiv Ram being one of the co-owner, he has to be made party to the application. It was also contended that applicant's son is already engaged in the business of sale of certain items and hence, the alleged need is not genuine. It was also contended that applicant has several shops available where she can undertake the so called business. Lastly, it was contended that applicant is interested in increase of rent rather than the eviction. Parties led evidence. Eventually, by impugned order, the Rent Controlling Authority allowed the application and held that need set up by the landlady is bonafide and genuine and since she has no other reasonably suitable suit accommodation of her own in city and hence, decree for eviction is passed. It is this order, which is impugned in this revision.