MADHU SUPARI CO. Vs. ASHALATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant has filed this revision against an order dated 9.9.85 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, in Case No. 246 of 1984, which has been filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement.

(2.) THE petitioner in his defence contended that the plaintiff-respondent is not his landlord and consequently there being no relation of landlord and tenant the suit is not maintainable. However, the learned Rent Controlling Authority without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence on this point has committed an illegality in assuming that the plaintiff is the landlord of the defendant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the provisions of Section 23D(3) of the amended M.P. Accommodation Control Act (Act No. 7 of 85) which came into force on 16.1.85 the presumption is only about bonafides but not about the requirement. He, therefore, submitted that the burden lies upon the landlord to prove that his requirement is bonafide. In order to appreciate this submission it is necessary to quote Section 23D(3) which is as under :-