DHARMENDRA KUMAR MOTIWALA Vs. VIDYA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed under section 23 -E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) assailing the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur in case No. 4 -A/90(7)/1996 by which an order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on following grounds :

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the landlord supported the order of eviction and submitted that the need is bonafide. The plaintiff who was residing in a dilapidated house immediately on getting good accommodation shifted to it. The accommodation which was vacated by Mahendra Baghela and at present occupied by the plaintiff is insufficient for the necessity of plaintiff. The plaintiff is having a grown -up family and is enjoying a good position in the society. Her father -in -law was member of Legislative Assembly and plaintiff herself is the elected member of Panchayat. Looking to the status of plaintiff and grown -up family, the present accommodation is insufficient. That the previous house in which the plaintiff was residing at the time of filing of application for eviction was in a dilapidated condition. The roof of the house was Kachcha of 'Khaprel' and it was not a habitable house, and on getting alternative accommodation vacated by Mahendra Baghela, plaintiff shifted immediately. Though during the pendency of application plaintiffs two daughters have been married, but still the need is continuing. At the first floor there is no proper place for children, guest and visitors, and looking to the status of the family of plaintiff the suit accommodation is required bonafidely. The plaintiff has proved her case for additional accommodation and the Rent Controlling Authority has rightly passed the order of eviction. That the revisional power of this Court under section 23 -E of the Act is limited one and cannot be expanded to re -appreciate the entire evidence. Until and unless in the finding recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority some perversity or error is pointed out interference is not needed. Reliance is placed to the judgment of this Court in Smt. Geetabai and others Vs. Babulal and others : (AIR 1990 MP 147) and Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta : [2005 (1) MPJR 29] and submitted that this revision may be dismissed. To appreciate rival contention of the parties, it will be appropriate to refer the factual position of this case. The plaintiff Smt. Vidhya Thakur falls within the category of landlord, specified under section 23 -J of the Act. As her husband has died long back, she filed application under section 23 -A of the Act on 12.2.1996 seeking eviction against the petitioner. The grounds stated in the application are that plaintiff is residing in a house situated at Wright Town bearing no. 2337 consisting of 3 rooms and one Veranda, as per map enclosed to the application. The plaintiff was having two daughters aged 16 to 14 years and one son aged 12 years. All were studying in the local schools. The plaintiff was not having suitable accommodation for the children for their study and separate living. That the guests were regularly coming to the plaintiff, so their convenience was to be maintained. The father -in -law of plaintiff was a reputed and worthy agriculturist. He was also member of Legislative Assembly and was enjoying reputation in the District. The house in which the plaintiff was residing at the time of filing of application was a dilapidated house and some of the portion was dangerous for habitation. The first floor of the suit accommodation in which Mahendra Baghela was tenant, vacated it in which plaintiff shifted her residence, but the aforesaid accommodation is small one, while the suit accommodation is having sufficient accommodation including a courtyard. The plaintiff has constructed one store room on the 2nd floor. The plaintiffs son Abhay Singh has also got married. On the aforesaid ground the application was filed for eviction of (sic).

(3.) THE petitioner filed reply in which the petitioner denied the averments of application and submitted that the accommodation in which the plaintiff was residing was a sufficient accommodation. The suit accommodation is a joint accommodation having other co -owners of equal share and the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner nor the defendant is the exclusive tenant of the suit premises. The suit accommodation was used for office and residence from very beginning. As the non -applicant is an Advocate and engaged in the legal profession and was running his office in the suit accommodation. The plaintiff has let out one accommodation to Prachay Sanstha (a branch of handicapped persons). That the plaintiff is an influential landlady. Her sister -in -law is Chairman of DRDA and is posted at Collectorate, Jabalpur. The plaintiff and her nephew Goli Thakur assaulted wife of the defendant and a case under section 448, 294, 323, 336 read with section 34 of I.P.C., was registered at Police Station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur and a challan has been filed in which the plaintiff and her nephew Goli Thakur have been released on bail. On the aforesaid grounds the application was contested by the petitioner. The Rent Controlling Authority framed the issue and recorded evidence of both the parties. The application was allowed by order dated 10.11.1997 against which the petitioner preferred a revision before this Court. When the revision was pending Mahendra Baghela vacated the accommodation which was just above the suit accommodation. This Court by order dated 9.10.2003 allowed the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in respect of accommodation vacated by Mahendra Baghela and remanded the matter to the Rent Controlling Authority to decide it afresh, in accordance with law. After remand both the parties incorporated amendment and consequential amendment and also adduced further evidence in the matter. Thereafter the Rent Controlling Authority considering the entire material and evidence, passed impugned order directing eviction of petitioner.