ANUPAM PRAKASHAN Vs. JAMUNA PRASHAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition and Civil Revision No. 69/18 have been filed by the two petitioners against the same N.A. on identical grounds.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of these revision petitions are that the present petitioner and petitioner in C.R. No. 69/85 are tenants of the N.A. in the premises situated in Banjari Chowk, Gol Bazar, Raipur. The premises are let out for non-residential purpose. It appears that the N.A. in the two revision petitions, gave a notice for eviction and sought eviction on the ground that his sons who have attained majority, want to start their own business. After service of notice, the petitioners in these two revisions submitted an application under Section 23(c)(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for leave to defend which was sought on the ground (i) that the plaintiff N.A. has an alternative accommodation of his own and in fact the sons have started their own business in those premises; and (ii) that the N.A. plaintiff wanted to enhance rent and because the petitioners-defendants did not agree to pay rent as demanded by the N.A. plaintiff he has filed the present petitions for eviction and the N.A. plaintiff is also constructing new buildings wherein there will be enough accommodation for starting business of the sons of the plaintiff N.A.

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority shows as if the learned Rent Controlling Authority was deciding the question as to whether there was an alternative suitable accommodation available with the plaintiff where his two sons have started business. This question could only be decided if leave to defend was granted and parties were permitted to lead evidence about it. Admittedly no evidence was led. It was only an application for leave to defend and no doubt when the tenant makes these allegations and seeks leave to defend, the plaintiff-landlord is bound to deny it and if the learned Rent Controlling Authority proceeds to decide the matter on merits merely on the ground that name of the building is not mentioned and, therefore, it is not strictly in accordance with law of pleadings, it could only be said that unfortunately the learned Rent Controlling Authority failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law under Section 23(c)(1). What the Authority under this provision is expected to consider at the time of grant of leave is to see as to whether the defence proposed to be set up by the tenant defendant is such a defence, if established, will entitle him to get the suit of eviction dismissed.