BANSILAL Vs. MADHOSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 16.8.1988 in Rent Control Case No. 1-4-90(7) of 1987-88, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur.

(2.) THE non-applicant (herein), landlord, filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of his tenant, the applicant (herein, on the ground that he being also landlord under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requires bonafide the suit premises for the residence. The non-applicant (herein) is an Engineer and is to be retired with effect from 31.12.1987 as Executive Engineer, Village Engineering Service, under the Commissioner, Bilaspur. He is not entitled to allotment of a house at Bilaspur under his service conditions. He was occupying a house on a rent of Rs. 400/- per month at Bilaspur. Hence, the need for the suit house. He has four grown up sons, out of whom, two are married. His sons, wife and sons' wives, are dependant on him. He shall continue to work as Engineer even after his retirement. He claims to be a patient of high blood-pressure and is suffering from ailment of heart. Due to the aforesaid facts, his submission was that ground floor of the suit house which is in occupation of the tenant, applicant (herein), shall be most suitable.

(3.) THE counsel for the applicant (herein) argued that the claim of the landlord could not be entertained by the Rent Controlling Authority. No material is placed so as to hold that the landlord, on his transfer to Bilaspur was not entitled to a Government accommodation, in Bilaspur. The non-applicant (herein) did not fall in the category of landlord under Section 23-J of the Act, on the date when he filed the application. The permission to withdraw Civil Appeal No. 9-A of 1983, was granted on 7.11.1987, while the landlord filed this application for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority on 9.10.1987. It is submitted that the eviction petition before the Rent Controlling Authority, was premature. Reliance was placed on Paraschand v. Hemant Kumar, 1987(1) RCR 316 (FB). The application for ejectment has been filed even prior to the date of his retirement. The landlord was living in his own house and his assertion that he was occupying the tenanted premises, is false. The statement of P.W.5 Lalaram Soni, was unreliable and should have rejected. The landlord did not produce any receipt for proving payment of rent by him. Even the statements of Madhosingh (landlord) are unreliable. The Civil Suit was initiated after the demand for enhancing the rent, was refused by the tenant. Other portion of the house has been vacated by tenant Jayantibai and the same has been occupied by the landlord. A compromise decree against Shri J.P. Agarwal has the effect of additional accommodation in possession of the landlord which is sufficient to meet the need of the non-applicant (herein). Since the suit house was let out for residence, a decree for composite need, could not be passed. The House Nos. 2132 and 2133 at Quila Ward, Bilaspur, are recorded in the name of late father of the non-applicant (herein). These premises are in occupation of the non-applicant (herein). There are other houses in Bilaspur Town jointly recorded in the name of the non-applicant (herein) with his brother Udhosingh. The Court below did not take into consideration the aforesaid facts. The landlord failed to establish that he has no reasonably suitable accommodation in Bilaspur or the accommodation in his possession, is insufficient to meet his need. The landlord had to explain the possession in his occupation, which he failed to do. Relying on the case of B. Johnson Bernard v. C.S. Naidu, 1985 MPLJ 675, it is urged that the non-applicant failed to make out a case of eviction of the applicant (herein).