ANIL KUMAR SINGHAI Vs. VIMAL CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/tenant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal in case No.08/RCA/2009-10, whereby an order of eviction was directed against the applicant for a shop having measurement 9.6' X 13.6', situated at house No.16-A, New Market, T.T.Nagar, Bhopal.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant who was a retired employee of State Bank of Indore has filed an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for ejectment of the respondent from the aforesaid shop on the basis of the necessity. In the application, he gave the explanation about the other accommodation available to him. After filing of reply to the application, he modified the application that neither a talk took place for enhancement of the rent, nor his daughter started her business in the year 2001. It was pleaded that the daughter of the applicant/landlord had started her business in the name of her mother but, since 1996 she was doing her regular business.

(3.) In reply to the application filed by the landlord, the present applicant/tenant has submitted a reply that there was no bonafide need to the landlord. He could start his shop in the construction, which had proper shutters and it was being used as a garage. Also, he could use the shop of his daughter. After retirement, he disposed off the second shop by giving it to his daughter and therefore, the landlord had an alternate accommodation and he did not have any need to get the suit accommodation evicted. It was also objected that the landlord did not fall within the purview of landlord under section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'MPACA') and therefore, it was prayed that the application for ejectment may be dismissed.