Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1314 (MP)

Mohanlal v. Hargundas Moolchandani

2000-12-07

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body2000
The applicant-tenant has directed this Revision against the Order dated 31.12.98 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A/90(7)-27/96 thereby the learned RCA allowed the application filed by the non-applicant landlord u/s 23A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act') and passed the order of eviction of the applicants from the suit accommodation. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that non-applicant Hargundas Moolchandani is the landlord and the owner of the house No. 16 situated in Street No.3 B.K. Sindhi Colony Indore. In the ground floor of the said house there are six shops given on rent to different persons. Out of the said shops one of the shops is in occupation of the applicant on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/-. In the application, it is stated that the applicant tenant without the permission of the landlord has inducted a sub-tenant Sandeep Choudhary in the said shop. It is also stated that the non-applicant landlord is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore and after his retirement he wants to start a stationary and books shop in the premises which is in occupation of the applicant and for this purpose he bonafidely requires the suit shop for his alleged need of starting a stationery and books shop as he has no other accommodation of his own in the city of Indore in his possession for the alleged need. On the aforesaid facts he filed an application before the RCA, Indore u/s 23-A of the Act for eviction of the applicant and delivery of the vacant possession of the suit shop. The application was opposed on behalf of the applicant on various grounds. The learned RCA framed the issues and on the basis of the evidence recorded by the parties, allowed the application filed by the non-applicant landlord and ordered eviction of the applicant from the suit accommodation by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision against the said order of the RCA, Indore. Learned counsel for applicant contended that from the evidence of the parties available on the record, the bona fide requirement of the suit shop by the non-applicant landlord for starting the stationery and book selling shop is not established. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision against the said order of the RCA, Indore. Learned counsel for applicant contended that from the evidence of the parties available on the record, the bona fide requirement of the suit shop by the non-applicant landlord for starting the stationery and book selling shop is not established. The learned counsel also contended that the non-applicant is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore who took voluntary retirement before he attained the age of superannuation. As such, he is not covered under the definition of the landlord as defined u/s 23-J of Chapter 3A of the Act. As such, the application filed by the non-applicant under the special provisions of Sec. 23-A of the Act was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in case of M.A. Raju v. Smt. Gomti Bai [1990 MPACJ SN 25], Smt. Dhanapali v. Gourishankar Goyal [ 1994 (2) MPWN 223 ] and Mohandas v. Devandas [1996 (2) AIRCJ Vol. 7-128]. As against this, learned counsel for respondent submitted that in view of the provisions of Sec. 23-J(2), Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya is a body corporate under a statute under the control of the State Government, is covered under the categories of the landlords under the aforesaid provisions and the application filed by the non-applicant for eviction of the tenant u/s 23-A of the Act is maintainable. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar v. Surendra Verma ( 1994 JLJ 740 ) and Wailaiti Ram v. Narbada Prasad ( 1996 MPLJ 314 ). The learned counsel also submitted that from the evidence of the parties available on the record, the bona fide requirement of the suit shop by the landlord is duly established. The finding of the RCA on the aforesaid fact is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on the record. As such, no interference is required in the impugned order of the RCA exercising revisional powers u/s 23-E of the Act. I have considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties and carefully perused the record as also the legal aspect of the matter under consideration. It is not disputed that the non-applicant landlord is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore. He was voluntarily retired before attaining the age of superannuation on 1.4.91. I have considered rival submissions of the learned counsel for parties and carefully perused the record as also the legal aspect of the matter under consideration. It is not disputed that the non-applicant landlord is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore. He was voluntarily retired before attaining the age of superannuation on 1.4.91. In view of the provisions of Sec.23-J(2), in my considered opinion, he is covered under the categories of the landlord described under the Section. In case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court interpreting Sec. 23-J(2) of the Act has held that the retired employee of MPSRTC is also covered u/s 23-J of the Act as the said Corporation is owned and controlled by the State Government. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Wailaiti Ram (supra), this Court also held that a landlord who has retired from a government-aided school is covered under the definition of the landlord u/s 23-J (2) of the Act and is entitled to the benefit of provisions of Chapter III of the Act. In the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge also referred the analogous provisions contained in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and observed that an employee working as Controller in the Punjab University was held to be covered by the definition of specified landlord as given in Sec. 2(hh) of the said Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, as the non-applicant landlord is a retired employee of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore which is a body corporate and established under a statute and controlled by the State Government, is covered under the categories of the landlords as defined u/s 23-J of the Act. Section 23-J of the Act never makes any distinction with regard to the employees retired after attaining the superannuation age or voluntarily retired from service on their own request. As such, the findings recorded by the RCA holding non-applicant landlord covered under the definition of Sec. 23-J of the Act does not require any interference in this revision. On perusal of Chapter 3-A of the Accommodation Control Act which is inserted by Act No. MP-27 of 1983 provides special procedure for the disposal of the petitions filed for eviction of the tenants by the landlord u/s 23-A of the Act before the RCA. On perusal of Chapter 3-A of the Accommodation Control Act which is inserted by Act No. MP-27 of 1983 provides special procedure for the disposal of the petitions filed for eviction of the tenants by the landlord u/s 23-A of the Act before the RCA. Sec. 23-C makes a provision that the tenant on whom the summons is served shall not contest the prayer of eviction unless the leave is granted by the RCA on the application alongwith affidavit filed on behalf of the tenant. Sec. 23-D(3) makes a provision that "in respect of an application by a landlord it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, the requirement by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be of Sec. 23-A is bona fide", Section 23-E states that no appeal shall lie from any order passed by the RCA under this Chapter but Sec. 23-E(2) makes a provision for revision to the High Court against the order of the RCA at any time suo mota or on the application of the person aggrieved for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness, passed by the RCA, The aforesaid Section also says that for the disposal of the revision under this Section, the High Court shall as far as may be exercise the, same powers and follow the same procedure as it does for disposal of revision u/s 115 of the CPC. While considering the scope of Sec. 23-E of the Act with regard to High Court's power of revision, this Court in case of Smt. Indra Kunwar Rathi v. Nanak Ram [ 1999(1) MPJR 513 ] and in case of Gulam Hyder Ali v. Smt. Arifa Bano [1990 MPACJ-SN 21] has held that the High Court's power of revision under the aforesaid provision is less than the appellate powers and more than the revisional powers u/s 115 of the CPC. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of Chapter 3-A incorporated by amendment in the Act, it emerged that this Court exercising revisional powers u/s 23-E of the Act has a limited scope for interference in the order passed by the RCA on the application filed u/s 23-A of the Act and this Court shall interfere in the said order of the RCA only for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of the order impugned. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the non-applicant retired from the service of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore on 1.4.1991 and thereafter he filed an application for eviction of the applicant on the ground of his alleged need of the suit shop for starting his own stationery shop. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the retirement or on the date of the application he was not possessed of any suitable non-residential accommodation of his own for his alleged need in the city of Indore. As such, on the aforesaid facts, prima facie his requirement of the alleged shop in possession of the tenant for his need is established. In view of the provisions of Sec. 23-D (3) of the Act, once the requirement of the accommodation in possession of the tenant is established, then, the alleged need shall be presumed to be bona fide. In this case, the said presumption is not rebutted from the evidence of the applicant tenant for holding that the alleged need of the suit shop by the landlord for starting his own business of stationery is not bona fide. The learned RCA on proper consideration and appreciation of the evidence available on the record, recorded a finding that the suit shop is required bona fide by the landlord for starting his own business of stationery shop and ordered eviction of the applicant-tenant from the suit shop is well founded and requires no interference in this revision. In the result, the revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed affirming the impugned order as passed by the RCA. There shall be no order as to costs of this revision.