MOHD. HUSSAIN Vs. MANOHARLALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1991 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandsaur in Case No.3/85 -86/ A -90 (7).

(2.) THE case of the applicant is that he is the owner of the premises in dispute in this case; that the non -applicant is the tenant; that the applicant is a handicapped person, having no fingers and distorted hand. He wanted the premises for the purpose of running a business at Mandsaur. He has stated that he does not have any non -residential premises at Mandsaur except the disputed premises.

(3.) NEXT comes the question of requirement being bona fide. Mr. B.L. Pavecha read S. 23 -D sub -section (3) of the Act and made a particular reference to the presumption. He argued that the evidence of the applicant that he is a handicapped person with no fingers and distorted hands and that he required the premises for doing the business at Mandsaur, a presumption arises in favour of the applicant that he requires the premises bona fide unless proved otherwise. Referring to the evidence by the other side starting with the cross -examination of the applicant, no cross -examination leads the & Court to come to the conclusion that there is no need of the premises by the applicant muchless is it shown elucidated in the cross -examination that the need is not bonafide. Reading the evidence of the respondent also, the burden of proof of lack of bona fide requirement has not been discharged. The lower Court cannot deny the decree to the applicant on the only ground that his medical certificate is not produced and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of special definition of the word 'landlord' under S. 23 -J of the Act and further on the ground that he is residing at Gautampura, he does not need the premises at Mandsaur.