RAMNEEK SHAH Vs. CHANDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition has been filed under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] challenging the order dated 22-11-2016 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur [for short 'the RCA'] in Case No.27/A-90/2015-16 whereby an application filed by the non-applicant under the provisions of Section 23-A(b) of the Act has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to handover the vacant possession of the non-residential accommodation in question after expiry of two months from the date of order. Further, the Rent Controlling Authority in exercise of power under Section 23-G(2) of the Act has directed the non-applicant to pay amount equivalent to two years rent as compensation to the applicant.

(2.) The facts which are necessitous for adjudication of the present revision petition, briefly stated, are that the non-applicant preferred an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act before the RCA seeking eviction of the present applicant-tenant stating that he is the owner of the land bearing Block No.78, Plot No.58, admeasuring 780 Sq. ft., situate at Ganjipura, District Jabalpur and a house is built thereon, bearing Municipal Corporation No.208, Tularam Chowk, Jabalpur. It is pleaded that he had inherited the said property and in the ground floor thereof, there is a shop having an area 22 x 10 = 220 Sq.ft. which has been marked as A,B,C and D in red colour in the map attached. It is further submitted that the applicant-tenant is in occupation of the premises for a monthly rent of Rs.5000/- wherein he is carrying on the business of hardware in the name and style of "M/s Jabalpur Hardware Mart. The non-applicant submitted that he was in civil services in the Department of Water Resources of the State of M.P. and retired from the services on 13-01-2013. It was submitted that he was in bona fide need of the suit premises for running of his own business of construction materials viz. hardware and sanitary items etc. He further pleaded that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation for starting the said business.

(3.) Per contra, the present applicant refuted the claim of the non-applicant and submitted that he was not in bona fide need for starting the said business. It was further submitted that in the same building in the ground floor adjacent to the suit premises a reasonable and suitable accommodation is available to the landlord for starting his own business. It was alleged that the non-applicant/landlord has preferred the application seeking eviction of the applicant solely with the object to let out the suit premises on a higher rent or to sell out the premises in question.