Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 537 (MP)

UPICA Limited v. Tekchand Keshwani

2004-07-14

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a revision filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the order dated 28-6-2003 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as authority) in Case No. 60/rca/92. ( 2. ) IN brief the facts are that the respondent/landlord had filed an application before the Authority seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant stating therein that he is a retired Govt. servant and he bonafidely requires the suit shop No. 16 situated at ward No. 27 Guru Teg Bahadur, Roshanpura, Bhopal given on rent @ 2500 p. m. to the petitioner for starting his own business and for this he has no other suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in occupation in the city of Bhopal. ( 3. ) IN reply the petitioner/tenant stated that initially the suit shop was rented for Rs. 1500/- per month thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- in the year 1985 then after three years w. e. f. 1-12-1988 it was enhanced to Rs. 2500/- this establishes that the landlord wants to enhance the rent. It was further submitted by the petitioner/tenant before the Authority that since the respondent has retired from service he is getting enough pension and as such he has no need to go for the business and therefore his need is not bond fide. It has further been averred that at this age it is not possible for the respondent to run the shop. The petitioner/tenant further submitted that the respondent has no experience and funds for starling the business. ( 4. ) THE Authority after recording the evidence allowed the application and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit shop. ( 5. ) HEARD Shri R. D. Hundikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Shroti, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused record. ( 6. ) BEFORE the Authority the respondent examined himself and witness Gopi Chand (P. W. 2 ). In his evidence the respondent (P. W. 1) has deposed that he was working in the fisheries department of Govt. from where he retired vide order (Ex. P-l ). He wants to start his own business for which he has no other accommodation of his own in the city of Bhopal. In his evidence the respondent (P. W. 1) has deposed that he was working in the fisheries department of Govt. from where he retired vide order (Ex. P-l ). He wants to start his own business for which he has no other accommodation of his own in the city of Bhopal. He does not want to increase the rent but wants to open his own ready-made garments shop for which he got training from his nephew Gopi Chand (P-W. 2) who will provide him ready-made garments on credit and financial aid. In his family his relatives have also started business after retirement. He received cash retiral benefits by which he will start business. In cross-examination he has stated that in view of the rent note (Ex. P-2) (A) the rent was automatically increased from time to time as per the rent increase Clause No. 5 of the said agreement. In support of his witness Gopi Chand (P. W. 2) has deposed that after retirement the respondent Tekchand used to come to his shop and manage his shop during his absence. He has corroborated the evidence of Tekchand (P. W. 1) that Tekchand requires the suit shop for starting business of ready-made garments and for that he will help him. ( 7. ) IN rebuttal the petitioner/tenant examined Rahat Hussain as D. W. 1. He stated that he is working in the petitioners shop namely Upika Handloom. He accepted execution of rent note (Ex. P-2) and identified the signatures made on the said agreement by the then Regional Manager of the petitioner. Except this statement there is absolutely nothing in rebuttal to the evidence led by Tekchand respondent. ( 8. ) ON perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned order in my view the Authority has rightly concluded that the respondent/landlord a retired Govt. employee has proved his bona fide need. The finding arrived at by the Authority is based on sound appreciation of evidence and needs no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Hence the revision being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. ( 9. ) AT last Shri R. D. Hundikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that since rainy season has started the petitioner be granted time upto 31-12-2004 to vacate the suit shop. This prayer is not seriously opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 9. ) AT last Shri R. D. Hundikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that since rainy season has started the petitioner be granted time upto 31-12-2004 to vacate the suit shop. This prayer is not seriously opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, this prayer is allowed, subject to petitioners filing an undertaking before the Authority that he shall deliver vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent landlord on or before 31sl December, 2004. On filing of such undertaking within 15 days from today the Authority shall not execute the impugned order till 31sl December, 2004. With this, the revision stands dismissed. No order as to costs.