CHAINMAL Vs. RANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by tenant under Section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') against the order of his eviction from the tenanted premises.

(2.) THE respondent who is a widow, under special category of landlord as defined under Section 23-A of the Act, submitted an application of eviction of petitioner from the suit premises in which he is carrying on the business of shoe material. In the application, it has been contended that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of starting eye-clinic of her major son, namely, Dr. K. L. Kakkad who is a medical practitioner and there is no other vacant suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of her own is available in the township of Jabalpur.

(3.) THE application was resisted by the petitioner and after obtaining leave to defend, he filed written statement. In the written statement, he denied that respondent is a widow and therefore she does not come under the special category of landlord as envisaged under Section 23-J of the Act. It has also been denied that Dr. K. L. Kakkad is her son and resides with her. The petitioner further denied that said Dr. Kakkad is an eye surgeon and is holding M. D. Degree. It has been further denied that he is practicing for last more than 2 decades. The tenant- petitioner specifically pleaded that the building in which the suit accommodation is situated is a double-stbreyed building and first floor of the building is lying vacant and Dr. Kakkad can conveniently open Eye Clinic on the first floor. The averment made in the eviction application regarding the bona fide need has been emphatically denied. According to the petitioner under the garb of so called bona fide need, the suit accommodation is being tried to be vacated so that it can fetch more money by selling the same.