JUDGMENT This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1991 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandsaur in Case No.3/85-86/ A-90 (7). The case of the applicant is that he is the owner of the premises in dispute in this case; that the non-applicant is the tenant; that the applicant is a handicapped person, having no fingers and distorted hand. He wanted the premises for the purpose of running a business at Mandsaur. He has stated that he does not have any non-residential premises at Mandsaur except the disputed premises. The lower Court after taking evidence held that the applicant is not the landlord under the special definition of S. 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. It is also held by the Authority that since the applicant is residing at Gautampura, he cannot be said to need the premises at Mandsaur. On these two grounds, the decree is denied to the applicant. Mr. B.L. Pavecha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued taking help of the evidence of the applicant that the applicant is apparently handicapped person and he had shown both his hands to the Judge. He said that the evidence also reads like that. He has brought the applicant before this Court and I have seen that both his hands are distorted and without full fingers. In such a view, the insistence on only technical ground that the medical certificate is not produced, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of the legislation for special category of landlords. Next comes the question of requirement being bona fide. Mr. B.L. Pavecha read S. 23-D sub-section (3) of the Act and made a particular reference to the presumption. He argued that the evidence of the applicant that he is a handicapped person with no fingers and distorted hands and that he required the premises for doing the business at Mandsaur, a presumption arises in favour of the applicant that he requires the premises bona fide unless proved otherwise. Referring to the evidence by the other side starting with the cross-examination of the applicant, no cross-examination leads the & Court to come to the conclusion that there is no need of the premises by the applicant muchless is it shown elucidated in the cross-examination that the need is not bonafide. Referring to the evidence by the other side starting with the cross-examination of the applicant, no cross-examination leads the & Court to come to the conclusion that there is no need of the premises by the applicant muchless is it shown elucidated in the cross-examination that the need is not bonafide. Reading the evidence of the respondent also, the burden of proof of lack of bona fide requirement has not been discharged. The lower Court cannot deny the decree to the applicant on the only ground that his medical certificate is not produced and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of special definition of the word 'landlord' under S. 23-J of the Act and further on the ground that he is residing at Gautampura, he does not need the premises at Mandsaur. This is according to Mr. B.L. Pavecha, a farfetched argument and deserves to be reversed instantaneously. I think Mr. Pavecha is right on both the counts. Looking at the applicant himself, no medical certificate is needed to hold that he is a handicapped landlord entitled to the benefit of the special provisions of the Act. He has given unchallenged version that he wants to do the business at Mandsaur since he is sitting with his brother at Gautampura without much earning. There is no contrary evidence led by the other side. Therefore, the findings of the lower Court will have to be held to be perverse. In that view of the matter, I find that the applicant is entitled to the decree in his favour. The respondent is directed to hand-over the possession of the suit shop to the applicant and pay-up the rent and mesne profits till delivery of possession. He is directed to hand-over the possession on or before 31.3.1995. The revision application is accordingly allowed with no orders as to costs.