SWAROOP CHAND Vs. GUMANA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been preferred against the order dated 10-1-2003 passed by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur in Case No. 60/a-90 (7)/2000, directing thereby eviction of the revisionist.

(2.) ADMITTED facts of the case are that the shop in question is comprised in a property which was purchased by applicant Smt. Gumana Bai vide registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989 and has been occupied by the non-appli-cant/revisionist as a tenant.

(3.) SMT. Gumana Bai as a landlady submitted an application under Section 23-A (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) for eviction of the revisionist on the ground that she needed the disputed shop for starting of business by Sajal and Prabhat who happen to be the grand sons of her brother-in-law. The disputed property is stated to have been purchased by her vide registered sale deed 6th of February, 1989. The shop in question has been in the occupation of the non-applicant/revisionist as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month as rent. It is further averred in the application for eviction that neither she nor the aforesaid grand sons have any other alternative accommodation of non-residential character in vacant condition. It has been expressly and specifically pleaded in the application for eviction that the applicant is issueless and out of love and affection she has great affection with the father of Sajal and Prabhat and after the birth of Shri Sajal and Prabhat, she orally undertook to bear the responsibility and accordingly she is looking after both Sajal and Prabhat from all corners and feels her moral responsibility to settle them in business and therefore she requires the suit accommodation for the business of Shri Sajal and Prabhat. Thus, eviction of the non-applicant/revisionist has been sought or bona fide requirement under Section 23-A (b) of the Act.