ORDER A.K. Mishra, J. 1. These two revisions have come up arising out of the order dated 12-3-1999 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior in Case No. 13/96. Civil Revision No. 516/1999 has been filed by the defendant/tenant; Mohan Krishna Dwivedi challenging the order of his eviction whereas in Civil Revision No. 665/1999 part of the order not directing the defendant to deposit the rent pendents lite has been assailed. 2. The respondent-Bhau Sahib Argade, retired employee of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'MPEB') applied for vacation of the suit accommodation in possession of Mohan Krishna Dwivedi on the ground of genuine requirement for residence for himself and his family alleging that he was not possessed of any alternative accommodation in Municipal limits of Gwalior and was residing at Bhopal for want of accommodation that too in a tenanted accommodation and wanted to shift to Gwalior. Hence, application under Section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority (for short 'RCA'). 3. In the reply defendant contended that he was not the tenant of Bhau Sahib Argade. Thus not only the tenancy was denied requirement was also disputed. Rent Controller has found that it is established that Mohan Krishna Dwivedi is the tenant of Bhau Sahib Argade the applicant and applicant required the suit accommodation for the purpose of residence and there was no other alternative accommodation suitable for residence in possession of the plaintiff. 4. In the present revision, learned counsel for the tenant Shri M.M. Kaushik has urged that MPEB cannot be said to be a company as defined in Section 23-J (ii). Landlord of the category specified in Section 23-J can only file an application. His further submission is that it is not satisfactorily established that the applicant was an employee of MPEB. It is his further submission that the plaintiff has stated that there are three rooms which are vacant and their un-suitability has not been pleaded in the application though at the stage of evidence the plaintiff has shown them to be in dilapidated condition. However, it was incumbent upon the applicant to have pleaded so. His further submission is that the plaintiff has admitted existence of 25 rooms and has failed to explain as to non- availability of them. Hence, it is the case where the applicant be non-suited. However, it was incumbent upon the applicant to have pleaded so. His further submission is that the plaintiff has admitted existence of 25 rooms and has failed to explain as to non- availability of them. Hence, it is the case where the applicant be non-suited. His further submission is that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established and also that the RCA had not adverted to the evidence adduced by the defendant. Hence, the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be set- aside. 5. Learned counsel for the landlord Shri N.K. Gupta has submitted that it is a case where the plaintiff is residing in Bhopal in tenanted accommodation. There is rent note Ex. P-4 and receipts of rent Exs. P-5 to P-9 evidencing monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence on record to support the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is further submitted the other tenants have deposed to support the case of the plaintiff and by the evidence the requirement for residence is made out and no interference in revision is called for. Further submission is that even if the deposition of the defendant is taken into consideration position does not alter. Even a suggestion in the cross-examination of applicant was made which has been accepted by the landlord that rent has been paid for the period January, 1986 to January, 1989. Counsel's submission is that putting such suggestion amounts to suggesting the case of landlord-tenant's relationship. His further submission that wife of the plaintiff whose signature also occurs on certain receipts has not been examined. Hence, an adverse inference be drawn against the petitioner tenant. 6. The first question is with respect to the maintainability of the application. This question came up for consideration before this Court whether the definition of 'landlord' as contemplated under Section 23-J includes corporation. It was laid down by this Court in case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar Vs. Surendra Verma ( 1994 JLJ 740 ), that there is nothing in language context of Section 23-J (ii) to give restricted meaning to the "company". Section 23-J (ii) reads as under :-- "23-J. Definition of Landlord for the purpose of Chapter III-A.- For the purpose of this Chapter 'Landlord' means a landlord who is- (i) ..... Surendra Verma ( 1994 JLJ 740 ), that there is nothing in language context of Section 23-J (ii) to give restricted meaning to the "company". Section 23-J (ii) reads as under :-- "23-J. Definition of Landlord for the purpose of Chapter III-A.- For the purpose of this Chapter 'Landlord' means a landlord who is- (i) ..... (ii) a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government;" The controversy has been finally settled in an appeal taken to the Apex Court against the said decision where in the Apex Court has agreed with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar (supra), the decision of the Apex Court in Surinder Verma Vs. Ranjit Narayan Haksar ( 1995 JLJ 460 ). The S.L.P. has been dismissed by a speaking order of the Apex Court. Agreement has been shown with the view expressed by this Court. Thus, the question is not open for any further consideration whether "company" includes corporation board or not. Nature of M.P.S.R.T.C. which is also a corporation established by the State Government and MPEB is at par. Both are creations of the Government. Thus, an employee of MPEB being landlord under Section 23 (J) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 can have resort to a special protection under Section 23-3, MPEB being a company within the definition in Section 23-J (ii) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 7. The other submission raised by learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner, is that the relationship of landlord-tenant is not established. It is not proved that the petitioner plaintiff is a retired servant of MPEB. His submission is that the original document which has been filed does not bear seal and signature so as to conclusively come to the conclusion that the landlord was an employee of MPEB. Bhau Sahib Argade has clearly deposed that he had retired from MPEB. Retirement order is P-1, its copy P-1C is on record. Original document is also on record. He has retired on 31-7-1989, Certificate P-2 of which has been issued to him by the MPEB. Though it is true that original documents Exs. P-1 and P-2 do not bear seal but designation and signature are available on the documents. Documents on the face of them are genuine documents, cannot be ignored. Original document is also on record. He has retired on 31-7-1989, Certificate P-2 of which has been issued to him by the MPEB. Though it is true that original documents Exs. P-1 and P-2 do not bear seal but designation and signature are available on the documents. Documents on the face of them are genuine documents, cannot be ignored. Moreover technical plea raised that for want of seal the documents cannot be acted upon. As a matter of fact cross-examination of the landlord was directed only to the fact that document does not bear seal and on first page signature are not available on the Ex. P-1. But, cross-examination has stopped there. It has not been put that plain tiff was not an employee of MPEB. This suggestion specifically has not been put in the cross-examination. Moreover there is nothing to doubt the veracity of the statement made by the landlord which has been accepted by the Rent Controller. Mohan Krishna Dwivedi tenant himself has not stated in his deposition that the landlord was not an employee of MPEB. Thus, I find no merit in the submission raised by learned counsel for the tenant that the landlord was not an employee of MPEB hence not a landlord defined under Section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 8. The next submission raised by learned counsel for the tenant is that the relationship of landlord-tenant is not established. There are documents on record Ex. P-4 rent note and there are other receipts Exs. P-5 to P-9. Rent note Ex. P-4 is of Nov. 1986. Rent receipt is of Nov. 1985, receipt Ex. P-9 is for January, 1988, Ex. P-7 is for July, 1988 and Ex. P-8 is for September, 1988. Exs. P-5, P-6 bear the signature of Mohan Krishna Dwivedi in the portion A to A. Exs. P-9, P-7 and P-8 hear the signature of Saroj Dwivedi. Rent Note Ex. P-4 is also on record which also bears the signature of tenant Mohan Krishna Dwivedi which has been executed in favour of the applicant landlord. The signature of the defendant Mohan Krishna Dwivedi occurs in English. No, doubt he has denied his signature, but, there is evidence of yet another tenant examined by the landlord namely; Alkendra Sahay. He has clearly stated that Mohan Krishna Dwivedi used to pay the rent to landlord. He was also one of the tenants. The signature of the defendant Mohan Krishna Dwivedi occurs in English. No, doubt he has denied his signature, but, there is evidence of yet another tenant examined by the landlord namely; Alkendra Sahay. He has clearly stated that Mohan Krishna Dwivedi used to pay the rent to landlord. He was also one of the tenants. He is tenant in another portion of the house and wife of Mohan Krishna Dwivedi had also paid rent to applicant. It appears that the Trial Court had not taken into consideration the denial made by Mohan Krishna Dwivedi/tenant. But, simple denial of Mohan Krishna Dwivedi does not inspire confidence and is not enough to discard the documentary evidence. There is also oral evidence not only of landlord, but, it is supported by another tenant. Even if the statement of tenant is taken into consideration that shows simple denial which is unworthy of credence in view of receipts of rent which has been acted upon by the R.C.A. and the payment of rent is also independently supported by Alkendra Sahay. Relationship of landlord and tenant is clearly established. I do not consider it apt to remand the matter as prayed. Not only this, suggestion has also been made in cross-examination of landlord that from January, 1986 to January, 1989 the defendant has paid the rent to him to which he agreed. Putting of such suggestion shows that the tenant was not sticking to one stand and his stand is inconsistent which also supports the case of the plaintiff. Rent receipts Exs. P-5 to P-9 are available for suggested period for which rent has been paid to landlord. The scope of revision under Section 23 is less than of an appeal, but, is more than revision under Section 115, CPC. Hence, taking into consideration the evidence and factor of preponderance of the probabilities the finding recorded by the RCA is sustainable that relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the parties. 9. Coming to the last submission raised by learned counsel that the plaintiff ought to have averred unsuitability of the alternative accommodation which is in his possession in the petition filed before the RCA, the plaintiff has averred that he was not in possession of any suitable alternative accommodation in the greater Gwalior. 9. Coming to the last submission raised by learned counsel that the plaintiff ought to have averred unsuitability of the alternative accommodation which is in his possession in the petition filed before the RCA, the plaintiff has averred that he was not in possession of any suitable alternative accommodation in the greater Gwalior. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon the fact that the landlord stated that there are three rooms which are in his possession. He has stated in examination-in-chief itself that the three rooms were in bad shape and were in dilapidated conditions. The explanation has been given by landlord in examination in chief itself and condition of three rooms which are vacant have been shown to be dilapidated and landlord Bhau Sahib Argade has not been subjected to cross-examination on this vital part. Matter of cross-examination is not a matter of empty formality, it is a matter of substance. In the cross-examination of Bhau Sahib Argade same ought to have been put, in that case something could be said in favour of the tenant. But, it appears that rooms were dilapidated, that is why such suggestions has not been made. Thus, there is nothing to dis-believe that there is no suitable alternative accommodation in the possession of the plaintiff available in the greater Gwalior. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are 25 rooms in Bhau Sahib Argade's BADA, but, merely existence of 25 rooms does not mean, he was in actual possession of other accommodation. If it was a case of the defendant that any other portion is vacant that ought to have been put to landlord in cross-examination. The plaintiff has retired and wants to shift to Gwalior. He is residing in the tenanted accommodation at Bhopal. Thus, order or ejectment passed by RCA cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. 10. Coming to the revision C.R. No. 665/99, it is incumbent upon the tenant to deposit the rent pendente lite during the pendency of the case before the Rent Controller and this Court. The rate of rent is Rs. 250/- per month, for which the receipts are there. Rent note also contains the same rate. Hence, it is ordered that from the date of filing of the application before the Rent Controller the landlord shall be entitled to receive rent at the rate of Rs. The rate of rent is Rs. 250/- per month, for which the receipts are there. Rent note also contains the same rate. Hence, it is ordered that from the date of filing of the application before the Rent Controller the landlord shall be entitled to receive rent at the rate of Rs. 250/-per month till the date of actual handing over possession. 11. In the result, the Revision No. 516 of 1999 filed by the tenant is dismissed and C.R. No. 665/99 filed by the landlord is allowed. The order of R.C.A. is modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to rent pendente lite from the date of filing of the application till actual delivery of the possession at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this revision. 12. Civil Revision dismissed. 13. Counter Civil Revision allowed.