INDRA KUNWAR RATHI Vs. NANAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under section 23 -E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the applicant/landlady whose application filed under section 23 -A, has been rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority, has challenged the order dated 1.2.1995, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal, in case No. 85 -RCA/94.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are that the plaintiff claiming herself to be the owner of the property in dispute submitted an application under section 23 -A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction of the non -applicant/tenant, inter alia pleading that her son Omprakash needs the premises for carrying on his business and the applicant herself would also -co -operate with the son and would be a partner in the business. It was also pleaded that the applicant/landlady was possessed of necessary funds to carry on the business. As required by law, it was also pleaded that the applicant and/or her son Omprakash do not have any alternative accommodation of their own in their possession in the township of Bhopal for the purpose for which eviction is sought. It appears that a notice of the application was issued to the other side and some application for leave to defend was filed on 2.2.1995. It does not appear that leave to defend was granted. The records show that on 21.4.1995, written statement was filed by the present non -applicant. Thereafter, issues were cast and the parties were directed to lead evidence. At this stage, it would be necessary to observe that in view of the submission of the written statement, production of evidence by the parties would lead to a presumption that leave to defend was granted in favour of the non -applicant.

(3.) SHRI Ravindra Shrivastava learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Rent Controlling Authority was not justified in holding that the applicant has failed to prove bona fide or has failed to establish that the son does not need the premises for starting business. Cruising the finding recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, he contended that a stray sentence picked up from the statements of the applicant would not provide foundation to hold that the premises were needed for partnership business and not for the son exclusively. He also submitted that the R.C.A. was not justified in holding that unless the owner proves his exclusive ownership, the landlady would not be entitled to make an application for eviction of the tenant. On the other hand, contending contrary to the arguments of Shri Shrivastava, Shri Kumaresh Pathak for the non -applicant submits that a perusal of the language of section 23 -A(b) of the Act would show that unless the son is the exclusive owner, the landlady would not be permitted to file an application for eviction of the tenant, even if she is landlord. Referring to the evidence, he contended that the house was purchased by the joint family in the name of the landlady as that summary proceedings are started against the non -applicant tenant. According to him, purchase in the name of the applicant was a simple device to exercise right under section 23 -A of the Act. He also submitted that Omprakash was already working as partner with M/s Rathi Bors, therefore, there was no bona fide need in his favour. He also submits that Omprakash has clearly stated that he does not understand the accounts of partnership and as the plaintiff has come with the case that she would start business in parternship of Omprakash, bona fides of the need cannot be presumed and the evidence falls short in proving the same. I have heard the parties at length. The parties have read the entire evidence before the Court.