MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. DHARAMCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision under section 23e of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Katni on 29-5-1984.

(2.) THE applicant is in occupation of the suit premises and has been paying rent to the non-applicant since 1983. It appears that the suit house belonged to a trust and was purchased by the non-applicant in the year 1982 and intimation of the purchase was given to the petitioner who started paying rent as aforesaid. On 4-7-1983, the non-applicant served a notice through his Lawyer on the applicant intimating that the suit premises was in a dilapidated condition and needs its urgent repairs. However, the notice was not pursued further. On 20-2-1984 the present suit on the ground of "bona fide need" was filed before the Rent controlling Authority, Katni. The learned Authority granted leave to the applicant to defend action and consequently the applicant filed not only his written-statement but also examined witnesses. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Authority passed the impugned order of ejectment.

(3.) THE impugned order is assailed on the ground that the conclusion of the authority regarding existing bona fide need of the non-applicant is a perverse conclusion liable to be set-aside by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the non-applicant was required to prove not only the bona fide need but also that he was the owner of the suit premises which he had failed to prove. It is further submitted that the Rent Controlling authority was not authorised to act as such. The last submission is that the provisions incorporated in the Act by amendment in 1983 are void being contrary to provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.