JUDGMENT This revision u/s 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 12.9.2002 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, in Case No. 47/97, ordering eviction of the applicant tenant from a non-residential accommodation bearing Municipal No. 158 (old No. 72) situated at Devi Ahilya Marg, Jail Road Indore. Admittedly the accommodation in question origina11y belonged to one late Ms. Basantibai. Respondent Ushabai is the sister-in-law (brother's wife) of late Ms. Basantibai and it appears that after the death of Basantibai, respondent Ushabai has been collecting rent of the suit accommodation from the applicant tenant. The accommodation is held by applicant for non-residential purpose on rent @ Rs. 175/- per month. Respondent Ushabai, a widow, sought applicant's eviction from the suit accommodation on the ground of bona fide need, as specified in clause (b) of Sec. 23-A of the M.P. Act and it was averred that her two daughters and their husbands are living with her and that her younger daughter's husband is without any job and wants to start business in the suit accommodation and that she or the said son-in-law has no other accommodation in their possession in Indore town suitable for that purpose. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the applicant tenant and it was denied that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It was also denied that the respondent is the owner of the suit accommodation. The need of the respondent was also questioned and it was submitted that the need of her son-in-law could not be a ground for eviction under clause (b) of section 23-A of the M.P. Act. The learned R.C.A. after taking evidence of the parties and on evaluation thereof, decreed the claim of the respondent directed applicant's eviction from the suit accommodation. I have heard Shri S.S. Garg, learned counsel for applicant and Shri S.M. Dagaonkar, learned counsel for respondent. This revision must succeed. The learned R.C.A. after taking evidence of the parties and on evaluation thereof, decreed the claim of the respondent directed applicant's eviction from the suit accommodation. I have heard Shri S.S. Garg, learned counsel for applicant and Shri S.M. Dagaonkar, learned counsel for respondent. This revision must succeed. Clause (b) of Sec. 23-A of the M.P. Act, under which applicant's eviction was sought, reads as follows: "(b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes 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." It will be, thus, seen that eviction from a non-residential accommodation can be sought only when the accommodation is required by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his own business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters. The landlord is further required to establish his/her ownership of the suit accommodation. In the instant case, neither of these two requirements is established. The need for starting business was not that of the respondent herself or her son or unmarried daughter. The respondent has only two daughters and they both are married. It was for the need of her son-in-law that the eviction of the applicant was sought. Such a need is not contemplated in Clause (b) and no eviction could, therefore, legally be granted for any such need of the son-in-law of the respondent. Respondent also failed to establish her ownership of the suit accommodation. Admittedly the accommodation in question originally belonged to late Ms. Basantibai, the sister of the husband of respondent. Although in her application made before the R.C.A., she claimed to be the sole heir of deceased Basantibai. But as admitted by her in her evidence, Basantibai is survived by her own sister viz. Dr. Shakuntala Devi. Basantibai was unmarried and died issue-less. In preference to the respondent sister-in-law, said Shakuntala Devi,the sister of the deceased, would succeed to the estate of the deceased. But as admitted by her in her evidence, Basantibai is survived by her own sister viz. Dr. Shakuntala Devi. Basantibai was unmarried and died issue-less. In preference to the respondent sister-in-law, said Shakuntala Devi,the sister of the deceased, would succeed to the estate of the deceased. Although the rent of the suit accommodation used to be collected by respondent Ushabai from the applicant tenant but that alone was not sufficient to maintain a claim for eviction under Clause (b) of Sec. 23-A wherein the respondent landlord was required to establish that she was also owner of the suit accommodation. As she was not the owner of the suit accommodation, she could not maintain any action for eviction of the applicant tenant. On this count also her application was liable to be dismissed. This revision, thus, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of eviction is set aside and the application filed by respondent before the R.C.A. is dismissed. However, no order is made as to cost which the parties shall bear their own, as incurred, of both the Courts below.