HARI NARAYAN SHARMA Vs. RAMKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, who is a tenant in a non -residential accommodation, challenges by this revision under section 23 -E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 the impugned order dated 7.10.1993 whereby the Rent Controlling Authority has refused leave to defend the eviction suit filed by the applicant -landlady. An application for leave to defend was filed within 15 days of the service of summons as required by laws, although an affidavit in support of the same was filed a little late. In the application, the tenant urged two grounds of defence, particularly that one of the son of landlady is carrying on cloth business in which his son Rajesh is also engaged with his elder -brother. The other defence raised was that the son Rajesh, for whom the accommodation was sought, is running a kirana business in the name and style of Ganesh provisions stores. It was also urged as an additional ground that the landlady wanted to enhance the rent and the tenant having declined, the suit for eviction was brought.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controlling Authority by the impugned order refused leave to defend to the tenant. The reason given in his order is that the tenant has nowhere stated that Rajesh has an alternative suitable accommodation for carrying on business. It was also stated in the order that Ganesh Provision stores was being looked after by Mukesh Kumar, other son of the landlady.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the landlady made some attempt to support the order and stated that the reasons given by the Rent Controlling Authority disentitles the tenant from grant of leave. It is also stated that in the absence of affidavit, the application for leave should have been rejected.