Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 110 (CHH)

Vinod Kumar Jain v. Pushpalata Paruthi

2001-11-09

FAKHRUDDIN

body2001
ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 21-11-2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Dhamtary in case No. 12-A/90(8) of 98-99 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 23(B) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for ejectment has been allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non- applicant filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority claiming that she being widow comes under Special Category of the landlords under Section 23-J (III) of the Act. The applicant Vinod Jain is tenant and is carrying on the business of hotel in the premises. The portion is a required by the landlady for bonafide need for carrying on her own business. The tenant filed reply and submitted that he is tenant on monthly rent in the disputed premises since last 31 years. There is no bonafide need of the landlady to start her own business but it is a pretext. In fact she wants to sell the disputed premises. Therefore it was prayed that the application of the applicant for eviction be rejected. 3. The landlady examined A.W. Smt. Pushpalata Paruthi, A.W. Subhash Chandra, A.W. Vinod Khandelwal. The tenant examined N.A.W. Vinod Jain, N.A.W. Jagat Singh, N.A.W. Ramchandra, N.A.W. Champalal and N.A.W. Anand Prakash Dixit. 4. Respondent A.W. Pushpalata Paruthi in her statement stated that the disputed premises was given to tenant Vinod Jain by her mother. In other portion of the premises, she and her son is residing. From the beginning Vinod Jain is paying the electricity bills. Since 1993, she is making request to Vinod Jain to vacate the premises, but possession is not given to her. She further stated that she wants to start her own business. Therefore, she has filed the application for eviction because the portion is required by her for bonafide need for carrying on her own business. 5. A.W. Subhash also stated that Vinod Jain is tenant in the disputed premises since last 20 years at monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. He further stated that the landlady wants to start her own business in the disputed portion. He also stated that the landlady has no other house or shop in Dhamtari town, where she can start her business and she is in need of a shop. 6. 250/-. He further stated that the landlady wants to start her own business in the disputed portion. He also stated that the landlady has no other house or shop in Dhamtari town, where she can start her business and she is in need of a shop. 6. A.W. Vinod Khandelwal in his statement has also stated that the landlady resides in back portion of the Quality Hotel. The landlady is in need to start her own business. She has no house other than the disputed premises. 7. N.A.W. Vinod Jain in his statement stated that he took the disputed premises on rent in the year 1966. He further stated that the landlady is an old lady aged about 64 years and is unfit. She does not want to start business. Even she has not yet decided as to what business she wants to do. He further stated that she wants to get the house vacated to sell the same. 8. N.A.W. Ramchandra and Champalal in their statements have stated that Vinod Jain is carrying on business of hotel. 9. The Rent Controlling Authority after considering the entire facts and circumstances and material available on record and after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses found that the need is bonafide and directed eviction of the tenant. The tenant has preferred this revision against the aforesaid order dated 21-11-2000. 10. During the pendency of the case, stay was granted by this Court vide order dated 13-12-2000. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed an application for vacating stay on the ground that the applicant has sublet the accommodation and is not in possession. Notices were issued. This Court passed an order on 09-08-2001 requiring the parties and one Prakash Badhwani to which the house is alleged to have been sublated, to remain present before this Court on 17-08-2001. They were examined by this Court on 09-08- 2001 and opportunities were also given to the counsels to cross- examination. Their statements have been recorded. Prakash Badhwani in his statement before this Court has stated that he remained in possession of the disputed hotel from 1st June, 2000 to 25th July, 2001 on rental basis. He used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-. Vinod Jain, in his statement before this Court stated that son of his elder brother Ratnesh is sitting in the hotel since last two years. He used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-. Vinod Jain, in his statement before this Court stated that son of his elder brother Ratnesh is sitting in the hotel since last two years. He stated that it is correct that Ratnesh kept Prakash as a servant at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. He also stated that if the landlady really wants to start business, she may take the possession of entire or a portion of the suit premises. Landlady Pushpalata Paruthi in her statement stated that she wants the entire premises bonafide and she does not want to let it out to anybody. 11. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the findings arrived at by the learned Rent Controlling Authority on the ground that the need of the landlady is not bonafide. It was contended that the landlady wants to get possession on the pretext of bonafide need but she wants to sell the same. He relied on the decision of Jagdish Chandra v. Smt. Kulveer Kaur reported in 2001(3) MPHT 418 = 2001 (2) M.P.L.J. 361 and Shankarlal v. Babulal and Ors. reported in 2000 M.P.A.C.J. 221. 12. Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that so far as the ownership of the lady is concerned, she is owner of the premises and has filed documents Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3, Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 to show his ownership. He further stated that even if she is not complete owner and is co-owner, she is entitled to get the premises vacated under Section 23 (J) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Ghanshyamdas Gupta v. Shivaldas and Ors. reported in 1988 M.P.L.J. 260. He further relied on the decision in the case of Harvilas Shivhare v. Jahoor Khan reported in 1997(1) M.P.L.J. 23 and contended that if she is an old lady and has no experience, even though she is entitled and it cannot be said that her need is not bonafide. 13. The question for consideration is that whether the landlady is in bonafide need of the premises for carrying on her own business. The plea taken by tenant Vinod Jain that the landlady is an old lady aged about 64 years and is unfit to start business, cannot be accepted. 13. The question for consideration is that whether the landlady is in bonafide need of the premises for carrying on her own business. The plea taken by tenant Vinod Jain that the landlady is an old lady aged about 64 years and is unfit to start business, cannot be accepted. Perusal of the record shows that applicant Vinod Kumar was not carrying on the business but it was given to one Prakash Badhwani who was carrying on the business of hotel. However, it was stated by Vinod Kumar Jain in his statement before this Court that he was a servant. He has stated before this Court that if the landlady wants to start her own business, she can take the entire premises or a portion in possession. If a tenant can carry on business on the premises, the landlady can equally carry on the business. 14. Having thus considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the witnesses and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, there appears no infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Rent Controlling Authority and it cannot be said that the need of the landlady is not bonafide. 15. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he has got a complete freedom in this matter. The provisions of Section 23-D (III) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are very clear which specifically contain that in respect of an application by a landlord, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the requirement by the landlord with reference to Clause (a) or Clause (b), as the case may be of Section 23-A is bonafide. So according to the Section, it is further tenant to prove contrary. This Court has considered the evidence of the present case. It does not appear to be a case where the landlady has filed the petition by any ulterior motive. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Authority was justified and no interference as such is called for. 16. This Court has considered the evidence of the present case. It does not appear to be a case where the landlady has filed the petition by any ulterior motive. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Authority was justified and no interference as such is called for. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met if the time 31-03-2002 is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute and handover the vacant peaceful possession to the landlady subject to the following conditions : (i) that the landlady shall not let out the premises laid & non in Section 17 the M.P. Accommodation Control Act too the period stipulated under this Act. (ii) that the tenant shall deposit all arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and he shall continue to deposit monthly rent till the accommodation is vacated. (iii) that the applicant/tenant shall furnish an undertaking duly supported by an affidavit to the effect that he shall vacate the premises in dispute and handover the vacant peaceful possession on or before 31st March, 2002, to the landlady. (iv) that if the undertaking is not complied with and the accommodation, as directed above, is not vacated within the specified time, then in that situation, the eviction order passed by the Authority shall remain in force and will be executable in accordance with the law and the applicant/tenant may be proceeded with for the disobedience of the order of this Court apart from other proceedings. 17. In view of what has been stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs.