BHANWAR SINGH CHANDMAL KOTHARI Vs. CHAMELI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful tenant/applicants have directed this revision Under Section 23a of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order dated 28th December, 1996 rendered by the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, 'the RCA) Indore in case No. A/90 (7)/92, thereby allowing the petition filed by the non-applicant landlady for their eviction from the suit accommodation.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant is the owner of the house bearing No. 574 situated at M. G. Road, Indore and one of the shops of the said house was let to the father of the applicants for non residential purpose. After the death of the applicant's father, said shop is lying vacant for the last 15 years. Monthly rent of the said shop is Rs. 12. 50. It is not disputed that non-applicant/landlady belonging to the category staled in Section 23j of the Act. The non-applicant filed the application before the RCA Under Section 23a of the Act for eviction of her tenant/applicants on the grounds of bona fide requirement of the suit shop for expansion of the business of her son, Manoj. In the application it is also stated that the applicants are not regular in payment of rent and they are in arrears of rent.

(3.) THE application was contested after seeking permission to defend the application. The applicants in their reply contended that the alleged need of the landlady is not genuine or bona fide. It is also stated in the reply that the non-applicant/landlady is possessed of reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of her own in the city of Indore, for her alleged need. The RCA, on framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and ordered eviction of the applicants from the suit accommodation on the ground that the suit-accommodation is bona fide required by the non-applicant for expanding the business of her major son, Manoj. The applicant/tenants, on service of notice did not comply with the provision of Section 13 (1) of the Act and on the application of the non-applicant, their defence was closed Under Section 13 (6) of the Act vide order dated 17-2-1997. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision petition.