AVINASH AGRAWAL ALIAS VANSHI Vs. REENA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Jabalpur in Case No. 56A90 (7)/2003 on 16.7.2004. Landlady in this case is a widow who submitted an application under section 23-A (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the applicants. It was pleaded that the revisionist No. 1 was a tenant in the suit premises who shifted himself from the suit premises leaving behind him the revisionists No. 2 and 3 to reside. It has been further pleaded in the application that the landlady is residing in the rented house and she bona fide requires the disputed premises for her own residence.

(2.) THE leave to contest was granted by the learned R.C.A. on 24.9.2003. On 10.12.2003 the written statement was submitted by the revisionists denying thereby the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was contended that the non-applicants were inducted in the disputed premises by one Girish Gupta on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- in the month of December. 1998 under an oral agreement. It was further contended that the disputed accommodation was let out to them for residential as well as for non- residential purposes. The alleged need of the landlady for residential purposes was also denied. After recording the evidence, the learned R.C.A. allowed the application for ejectment upholding the bona fide residential need of the landlady.

(3.) AS regards the objection of the learned counsel for the applicants that the subject premises was let out for composite purposes, it is suffice to say that though it is not proved that the subject premises was let out for composite purposes, otherwise also the premises let out for a composite purposes is liable to be get vacated in case of establishment of bona fide need for either purpose.