RAMBAI Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 23-E(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order dated 26-6-1993 of dismissal of the application for eviction, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer) Dhamtari (for short RCA) in Rev. Case No. 124/90/8/ 1991-92.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision are thus- The petitioner admittedly is the landlady of the non-residential accommodation, the suit shop, situated in front of old Bus-stand, Dhamtari, area 6x 15 feet of which respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- per month. The petitioner filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act for seeking eviction of the suit shop on bona fide requirement, for her son for the purpose of starting his own business of motor cycle, scooter repairing. The petitioner's son is a Mechanic and since last five years, working on a meagre pay of Rs. 500/- per month at Arun Jain Scooter House. The petitioner claimed eviction as a widow falling in specified category of clause (iii) of Section 23-J of the Act, who had no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation other own in her occupation in the city of Dhamtari. After issue of summons of the application to the respondent tenant, within 15 days from the date of the service of summons. the respondent filed an application supported by an affidavit to seek leave to contest the application for eviction as required by Section 23-C(1) of the Act, which was granted. On the pleas taken in the written statement, the RCA framed following issues : (A) Whether the petitioner is a widow and for this reason she falls within the specified category of landlord as defined in Section 23-J? (B) Whether the petitioner requires the suit shop bona fide? .

(3.) During the enquiry, the petitioner in her statement admitted that her husband left and deserted her when her son was 3 years of age. She is not aware whether her husband, who was resident of village Dargahan is dead or alive. In cross-examination, she admitted that her husband Dhursingh absconded of which she lodged a report. In the records of the Municipal Corporation in the ownership register, her name is recorded not as a wife of her husband but as daughter of her father. She cannot say whether her husband is dead or alive. But she is confident that her husband Dhursingh is alive. She belongs to the area of Chhattisgarh and belongs to Lohar caste, where if a lady is widow, she does not wear bangles and wear white saree, whereas in Court she has come wearing green bangles and coloured saree. In last paragraph of her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband has divorced her by custom of Chod Chutti and has left her. She cannot say whether her husband has remarried or not. On bona fide requirement, the petitioner, in her cross-examination, stated that she has sold one shop prior to the institution of the proceedings, to her tenant who was running a Grocery Shop in the name of' Jhulelal Stores'. She also stated that during the pendency of the applications a Gali (Strip) adjacent to the suit shop, a space of the area of 3 x 10 feet in a shop of shop, has been rented out to other tenant, as was not suitable for starting the business of scooter repair by her son, who is an expert mechanic who could not have carried on the work of repairs in that small room. The petitioner also examined her son on bona fide requirement, who stated that the suit shop is on the road side and is reasonably suitable for starting his business.