SHANTI DEVI AGARWAL Vs. V H LULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order, deciding the Civil Revision No. 83/2003 filed against an order dated 9-12-2002, in the case No. 2/2000-2001/90-7 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, allowing an application under Order 3, Rule 2 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') of the defendant seeking to reject the affidavit of the plaintiffs son, filed under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code, on the strength of a power of attorney to that effect, shall also dispose of the Civil Revision No. 122/2003 which impugns an interim order dated 27-3-2003 in the same case, whereby the authority has recalled in part the order dated 9-12-2002 to correct a mistake of closing the plaintiffs evidence while deciding the question as to whether the plaintiffs son being the power of attorney holder was entitled to lead evidence on her behalf, by filing an affidavit.

(2.) It is said that one Smt. Shanti Devi Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff) filed an application under Sec. 23-A(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against V. H. Lulla (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') for eviction from her house No. 17 (Municipal No. 31/1481) situated at Prem Nagar, Gwalior, on the ground of bona fide requirement. It appears from the pleadings that the defendant has been staying as a tenant in the disputed premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. The electricity and water charges are payable separately. The ground of bona fide requirement as pleaded in the application seems to be related to a requirement of residence of one Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, the youngest son of the plaintiff, who is said to be residing in a rented house. The plaintiff appears to have been residing In a portion of her another house situated at Sadar Bazar, Morar, with her another son namely Mahesh Chand Agarwal and his family. It also appears that the plaintiff and her son Mukesh have no other alternative vacant accommodation of reasonable size suitable for their residential purpose in the city of Gwalior.

(3.) It appears that the defendant was granted leave to defend under Section 23-C of the Act and he submitted a written statement denying the ground of bona fide requirement of the Landlord/plaintiff for eviction. The defendant appears to have pleaded like : the plaintiff was not the sole owner of the premises in question; the plaintiff does not need the premises, and he also owns some other alternative accommodation in the city and the defendant is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- with a further amount of Rs. 100/- per month towards the water and electricity charges.