BHAGWAN DAS Vs. RAM CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30-6-1997 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated facts are that the landlord-respondent filed a petition purporting to be under Section 23a of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter will be referred to as the 'act')- With the allegation that he was the owner of the house situated in Subhash Colony on Agra Bombay Road, Guna, detailed in para 1 of the petition the defendant was the tenant in the portion marked by the red lines in the map attached with the petition. He was a teacher previously and retired from service on 31-7- 1993. He wanted to carry on business of Breakfast Centre in the disputed shop in which the, present petitioner was the tenant. He had no other vacant shop with him in which he could carry on business. He gave a notice to the present petitioner on 13-9-1993 terminating his tenancy and to vacate the shop, but no effect. He also did not pay the rent. Respondent Bhagwandas i. e. the present petitioner moved an application purporting to be under Section 23-C of the said Act for leave to contest. It was allowed. He filed a written statement contesting the claim. He however admitted that he was the tenant in the disputed shop, but claimed that the rent was Rs. 125/- p. m. instead of Rs. 150/- as claimed. He had paid the rent. The respondent i. e. the landlord was the big businessman and had a business of Scooter, Motor parts and had also a workshop and garage in which he and his son carried on business. The petition was based on wrong allegation. He had filed a suit with respect to the disputed shop as well as adjoining property for possession in the year 1989, which was compromised. As a result of that compromise, the shop in question was given to him and the remaining workshop was kept by the landlord. The landlord wanted to enhance rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 500/ -.

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced evidence and after considering evidence on record and hearing parties, the learned R. C. A. allowed the petition holding that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide and directed the tenant to vacate the shop and to pay the rent. Feeling aggrieved, this petition, has been presented.