ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 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. The applicant examined herself as P.W.1, her son for whom the need was proposed, as P.W.2 and Satanarayan, yet another son was examined to prove further facts. The non-applicant entered in the witness -box D.W.1 and also examined Rupchand, D.W.2 and Arjun, D.W.3. 3. The applicant examined herself as P.W.1, her son for whom the need was proposed, as P.W.2 and Satanarayan, yet another son was examined to prove further facts. The non-applicant entered in the witness -box D.W.1 and also examined Rupchand, D.W.2 and Arjun, D.W.3. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned Rent Controlling Authority, holding that the applicant or her son did not have any alternative accommodation of their own in their possession for the purpose for which eviction was sought, rejected the application holding further that according to the applicant the shop was required for the business of the son, viz., Omprakash but in her statement she had categorically stated that the shop was needed for expansion of the business of M/s Rathi Bros. The Rent Controlling Authority held that the landlord can file a suit for eviction of the tenant, if the same was needed for the partnership firm. It found that the house belonged to the applicant and as the son was not the owner, such application was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. It also held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the bona fide of the need. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the applicant/landlady has filed this revision petition. 4. 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. 5. Section 23-A reads as under- 23-A - Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement. Not withstand anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application signed and verified in a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely: (a) that the accommodation 1st for residential purpose is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any per on for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own, in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, "accommodation let for residential purposes" includes- (i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a resident is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for any non-residential purpose; (ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision or contract for non-residential purpose; (b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purpose is required "bona fide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned : Provided that where a person who is a landlord has acquired any accommodation or any interest therein by transfer, no application for eviction of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person, unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisition. According to section 23-A, a landlord is entitled to move an application before the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the grounds well described in section 23-A for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation. Clause (b) provides that the landlord would be entitled to evict the tenant from non-residential premises, if the accommodation was let for non-residential purpose and the same is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or for any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential-accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. 6. Shri Pathak learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the words "if he is the owner thereof would qualify the words "major sons or unmarried daughters". 6. Shri Pathak learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the words "if he is the owner thereof would qualify the words "major sons or unmarried daughters". Reading the language in such manner, he submits that a landlord would be entitled to move an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of non-residential requirement for any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if the major sons or unmarried daughters are owners of the property. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, submits that the phrase "if he is owner thereof" would not qualify the words "his major sons or unmarried daughters" but would qualify the words "landlord". He submits that if the major sons or unmarried daughters are owners of the property, then the landlord would not be entitled to file an application before the Rent Controlling Authority because the landlord, firstly, has to prove that he is the owner thereof or, in the alternative, he has to prove that he is landlord and the other person is owner. 7. The language employed in section 23-A(b) clearly reads that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes in required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business. Breaking the sentence here, it would appear that the landlord would be entitled to file an application for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of continuing or starting his business. In such a situation, he is required to prove that he is the owner of the property. Catena of authorities clearly provide that the landlord would be entitled to evict a tenant from the demised premises, if he proves that not only he is the landlord but he is also the owner. Reading sub-section (b), now this Court will have to see that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the need of the major sons or unmarried daughters for the purpose of continuing or starting business, if he is the owner there of. The words "if he is owner thereof", in such a situation, would again qualify the word "landlord" was not the major sons or unmarried daughters. Let us read sub-section (b) again. The words "if he is owner thereof", in such a situation, would again qualify the word "landlord" was not the major sons or unmarried daughters. Let us read sub-section (b) again. If we read the sub-section as projected by Shri Pathak, then it would mean that landlord would be entitled to file an application for eviction of the tenant, if his major sons or unmarried daughters need the premises for the purpose of continuing or starting their business. According to Shri Pathak, in such a situation, the further words occurring in sub-section (b) "or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held" would become redundant and otios. True it is that the Accommodation Control Act makes a distinction between the landlord and owner. According to section 2(b) "landlord" means a person, who, for the time being, is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodation were let to a tenant and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a "landlord". Giving fullest effect to the definition of the word "landlord", in simple words, it can be stated that a person who receives rent for himself or for anybody and has authority to receive rent, would be landlord. The word "owner" in its dictionary meaning would simply mean that he is the person who has right of disposition. He has a right to alianate and exercise rights which are some what more than that of a landlord. There may be cases where the owner himself is not the landlord. A minor may be owner of the property, his father, natural guardian or some body on his behalf might be inducting and receiving rent. In such a case, the father/guardian would be the landlord but he would not be owner of the property, the son would continue to be the owner but he would not be a landlord because there is not privet of contract between him and the tenant. In such a case, the father/guardian would be the landlord but he would not be owner of the property, the son would continue to be the owner but he would not be a landlord because there is not privet of contract between him and the tenant. There may be a case that a person who has executed the power of attorney in favour of some one authorising him to induct a tenant and receive rent. Such a person inducting a tenant would only be a landlord qua the tenant and not the owner. Ownership would continue to vest in the first person who has given the authority to his attorney to induct the tenant and receive rent. 8. A landlord would be entitled to evict a tenant on the ground of his bona fide need, provided he proves that not only he is landlord but he is also owner. In a case where the landlord himself is not the owner, then the words "for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held" would come into operation. A landlord who holds the property for the benefit of such person would be entitled to institute a suit, for eviction of the tenant, if such person, who is the owner, needs the property or requires it bona fide. 9. If the interpretation made by Shri Pathak in accepted, then it would lead to a chaotic situation and would virtually violate the legislative intent. The interpretation made by Shri Pathak simply means that the landlord if he himself is the owner, then he can file a suit or an application under section 23-A for eviction of the tenant. If he holds the property for any one else, then alone he can file an application for the bona fide need of such person. The argument loses sight of the fact that owner landlord is also entitled to evict the tenant for the need of particular persons who are members of his family, who are dependent on him and who are otherwise entitled to stay and live with the landlord. A father who is owner landlord is certainly entitled to file an application/ suit for eviction of the tenant because it is expected of the owner landlord that he would establish his major son in life. A father who is owner landlord is certainly entitled to file an application/ suit for eviction of the tenant because it is expected of the owner landlord that he would establish his major son in life. If the father-landlord-owner is not permitted to file a suit for the need of the son, then the purpose of the Act would be frustrated. The law in simple words means that a landlord if he is owner of the property, can file a suit/application for eviction of the tenant for the purpose of continuing or starting his business and he can also file a suit/application for the eviction of the tenant for the purpose of continuing or starting the business, of the major sons or unmarried daughters. 10. In the present case, the learned Rent Controlling Authority placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mansharam Vs. Bhagwandas 1992 (1) M.P.L.J.R. 191, has held that where the need is for the son, then the property should exclusively belong to the son. After going through the judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the R.C.A. has not properly understood the said judgment. In the said judgment, this Court was only considering as to whether existence of joint family, business activity in which the son's need was projected, if had any interest, would have no material bearing on the application/suit for eviction. The Court, in paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment has held that a joint family might be having a few shops and engaged in the business activity, then too and even if the son was engaged in the joint family business, then also the need cannot be deined. The High Court held that the need of a particular person, if projected, is to be considered in view of evidence available on record. This judgment no-where says that the person for whose benefit and need the premises are needed must be the exclusive owner of the property. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the Rent Controlling Authority was absolutely unjustified in holding that for the son eviction can be sought only if the son was the exclusive owner. 11. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the Rent Controlling Authority was absolutely unjustified in holding that for the son eviction can be sought only if the son was the exclusive owner. 11. The Rent Controlling Authority has recorded a finding that the applicant, or Omprakash, did not have any other alternative accommodation of their own in the township for the purpose for which eviction was sought. That finding has not been challenged before this Court. Even otherwise, the Rent Controlling Authority has properly appreciated the evidence and has recorded the finding in accordance with law. The finding recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority that the applicant or Omprakash did not have any alternative accommodation of their own in their possession is confirmed and maintained. 12. The Rent Controlling Authority, while deciding issue No. 1 has found that the relationship of landlord and tenant does exist between the applicant and the non-applicant. Despite this finding, counsel for the non-applicant submits that the property was purchased by the joint Hindu family in the name of the applicant only to provide a foundation to evict the tenant under these summary proceedings. 13. The applicant, in her application, filed under section 23-A of the Act has referred herself to be landlord/owner of the property and in para-3-B has described the non-applicant as the tenant. In reply to para 3-A, the tenant admits that the applicant is owner/landlord but in para 3-B, he states that he was tenant of the earlier landlord Mohammed Ahmed Khan and the plaintiff be put to strict proof of relationship. In the present case, it is now not in dispute that the non-applicant tenant did pay rent to the applicant landlord through her son Satyanarayan. Once the tenant acknowledges the owner as the landlord and starts paying rent to him then there is legal adornment of the tenancy. In the present case, the tenant had been paying rent to the applicant through her son without any demur on his part. In view of his own act, now he is estopped from challenging ownership of the landlord. It is to be held that the application is owner/landlord and the non-applicant in the tenant. 14. In the present case, the tenant had been paying rent to the applicant through her son without any demur on his part. In view of his own act, now he is estopped from challenging ownership of the landlord. It is to be held that the application is owner/landlord and the non-applicant in the tenant. 14. Even on the face of these admissions made by the non-applicant and the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, this Court can still examine the question as to whether the joint family was the real owner of the property. The landlady, in her statement, has clearly stated that she is owner of the property. She has stated that the shop was purchased by her for the business of Omprakash. She has also stated that her son Satyanarayan was collecting rent. Omprakash (P.W.2) has also stated that the property belongs to the applicant. In the cross-examination, he was asked as to what money is owned by the applicant and from where she had received the money. Answering this question, the witness has clearly stated that the mother got provident fund of the father, was getting pension and she herself had some money on which she was gaining interest. From these facts, it clearly appears that the present applicant had sufficient funds and was in a position to purchase the property. 15. Shri Pathak learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that in the cross-examination the applicant has stated that there was no partition, therefore, it must be presumed that there was a joint family and the property was purchased by the joint family. I am afraid the contention cannot be accepted. The statement pressed into service has been read out of context. The whole statement reads as under: If this statement is read in its true perspective, it would only mean that there was no joint family, each was to earn for himself and to eat. Even otherwise, there is no presumption under the law that a joint family would have joint property. When members of a joint family state that the property did not belong to the joint family, then the burden would rest very heavy on the person who says that the property belonged to the joint family. In the present case but for making wild allegations, the non-applicant could not prove anything. When members of a joint family state that the property did not belong to the joint family, then the burden would rest very heavy on the person who says that the property belonged to the joint family. In the present case but for making wild allegations, the non-applicant could not prove anything. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant deserve to and are accordingly rejected. 16. The learned Rent Controlling Authority, while appreciating issue No. 3 has held that the property is not needed by Omprakash or the applicant but is needed for the business run under the name of M/s. Rathi Bros. The Rent Controlling Authority observed that M/s. Rathi Bros, is a partnership firm which is carrying on business of Ghee and Oil, in which Omprakash is a partner, therefore, the landlady wants eviction of the tenant so that the business of the partnership can be continued. The Rent Controlling Authority also observed that Satyanarayan, in his statement, has made a catagorical statement that M/s Rathi Bros, does not need the premises for expansion of their business, therefore, the need is not bona fide. Challenging this finding, Shri Shrivastava learned counsel for the applicant contends that the Rent Controlling Authority picked up a stray sentence from the statement of the applicant, misinterpreted it and illegally rejected the application. He submits that if the statement of P.W.1 is read in its true perspective, it would only mean that the need was for Omprakash. On the other hand, Shri Pathak submits that from her statements, rather admissions, it is clear that the shop in possession of M/s. Rathi Bros, was a small one, therefore, for their need the suit has been filed. 17. To appreciate the rival contentions, the statements made by the applicant are required to be referred. In her cross-examination, the applicant has stated that- In the same paragraph, she has also stated that - Reading the two statements together, it would appear that the shop was purchased by the landlady to meet the need and requirement of Omprakash. The said Omprakash admittadly was a partner in M/s. Rathi Bros. (sic) said Omprakash, in his statement, has stated that he does not understand accounts of partnership, therefore, wants to have his own independent business. Reading the statements together, it would only appear that the landlady purchased the premises to satisfy the need/requirement of Omprakash. The said Omprakash admittadly was a partner in M/s. Rathi Bros. (sic) said Omprakash, in his statement, has stated that he does not understand accounts of partnership, therefore, wants to have his own independent business. Reading the statements together, it would only appear that the landlady purchased the premises to satisfy the need/requirement of Omprakash. The said Omprakash was a partner in the firm and as the shop in possession of M/s. Rathi Bros, was small and he wanted eviction of the tenant for Omprakash. From this statement it no where appears that the landlady wanted eviction of the tenant to satisfy the need of M/s. Rathi Bros. She is categorical in her statement and is supported by Omprakash (P.W.2) and Satyanarayan (P.W.3). She is candid when she states that she purchased the property to satisfy the need and requirement of Omprakash. The learned Rent Controlling Authority was not justified in observing that the landlady has made an admission in her statement that the need was for M/s. Rathi Bros. P.W.3 Satyanarayan, in his statement, has clearly stated that the firm M/s. Rathi Bros, does not need another additional accommodation for expansion of their business. If this is so, then reading every thing in juxta position, it would clearly float on the surface that M/s. Rathi Bros, does not need the premises for expansion of their business, the property has been purchased to satisfy the need of Omprakash, Omprakash wants to have his own independant business and to satisfy his need, eviction is sought. 18. The Rent Controlling Authority was absolutely unjustified in observing that the need projected in the application was for the son, while the need projected in the evidence was for he partnership firm. In the opinion of this Court, there is no variance between the pleadings and proof. The applicant came with the case that the premises are needed for the son and in her statement has clearly stated that the premises are needed for the son. 19. In the opinion of this Court, there is no variance between the pleadings and proof. The applicant came with the case that the premises are needed for the son and in her statement has clearly stated that the premises are needed for the son. 19. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the non-applicant that the son Omprakash has clearly stated that he does not understand partnership accounts, therefore, he wants to have his own business but the landlady in her application has stated that the son would carry on the business and she would be a partner, therefore, it must be held that the applicant's son after retirement from one partnership would enter into another partnership because he does not understand the partnership accounts. P.W.2 Omprakash has stated in his statement- His statement, if is read in reference in context of other statements made by him, it would show that he was working as a partner of M/s Rathi Bros, for the last more than three years, the control of the partnership was with his elder brother Satyanarayan, the partners have access to the accounts, he does not understand accounts of partnership which are maintained by other partners and, therefore, he wants to start his independent buisness. The mother in the pleadings has stated that she would be a partner to the firm. At this stage, it is to be seen that if one partner is brother of the other partner, then he would not have extra control over the partnership but if he is partner with his own mother than he would have his control over the partnership accounts. The statement that he does not understand partnership accounts would not mean that he does not understand accounts of the business. What he only wanted to say was that he does not understand accounts of partnership. The Rent Controlling Authority has made capital out of this statement without even appreciating the true effect and meaning of the statement. 20. Shri Pathak learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the findings appear to be reasonable and as there is no perversity, this Court should not interfere. In the opinion of this Court, the scope of a revision under section 23-E is larger in comparison to a revision under section 115 CPC. 20. Shri Pathak learned counsel for the applicant lastly contended that the findings appear to be reasonable and as there is no perversity, this Court should not interfere. In the opinion of this Court, the scope of a revision under section 23-E is larger in comparison to a revision under section 115 CPC. Number of judgments have clearly laid down that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court in such matters would be some thing less than the appellate Court and little more than the jurisdiction of the Court under section 115 C.P.C. Even if the powers of this Court are nothing beyond section 115 CPC, then too if the Court finds that the lower Court has misread the evidence, misquoted the law, misinterpreted the law, has ignored to consider the evidence available on record, has recorded a perverse finding, then this Court would certainly be entitled to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. In the opinion of this Court, the Rent Controlling Authority has misread the evidence, has ignored to consider material evidence, has misinterpreted the law and has misapplied the judgment of this Court. 21. To sum up, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff/landlord is successful in proving that she is the owner/landlord, the property is needed by her for the business of her son, the said need is bona fide and for the said purpose, she has no other alternative accommodation of her own in her possession in the township of Bhopal. The son for whose need the premises are needed also does not have any alternative accommodation of his own in his possession. The landlady has established her case. She is entitled to an order in her favour for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. 22. Accordingly, the tenant is directed to vacate the premises by 30.4.1998 provided within two months from today (statutory period in which he cannot be evicted from the premises) he furnishes an unconditional undertaking before the Rent Controlling Authority that he shall vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the landlady by 30.4.1998. He shall also furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the Rent Controlling Authority for due perform of this order and shall be obliged to payment/mesne profits so long as, continues to be in possession. He shall also furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the Rent Controlling Authority for due perform of this order and shall be obliged to payment/mesne profits so long as, continues to be in possession. If the undertaking is not given or security is not furnished, the concession given to the tenant shall stand vacated and he shall be liable to be evicted immediately after two months from the date of this order. The revision is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed