JUDGMENT This revision application under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 is against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Jabalpur in Case No. 56A90 (7)/2003 on 16.7.2004. Landlady in this case is a widow who submitted an application under section 23-A (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 for eviction of the applicants. It was pleaded that the revisionist No. 1 was a tenant in the suit premises who shifted himself from the suit premises leaving behind him the revisionists No.2 and 3 to reside. It has been further pleaded in the application that the landlady is residing in the rented house and she bona-fide requires the disputed premises for her own residence. The leave to contest was granted by the learned R.C.A. on 24.9.2003. On 10.12.2003 the written statement was submitted by the revisionists denying thereby the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was contended that the non-applicants were inducted in the disputed premises by one Girish Gupta on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- in the month of December. 1998 under an oral agreement. It was further contended that the disputed accommodation was let out to them for residential as well as for nonresidential purposes. The alleged need of the landlady for residential purposes was also denied. After recording the evidence, the learned R.C.A. allowed the application for ejectment upholding the bona fide residential need of the landlady. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the revisionists have submitted the present revision application. Shri Ajay Ojha, counsel for the applicants subn1itted that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties to the case. The non-applicants being tenant of Shri Girish Gupta are not liable to be evicted under section 23-A (a) of the said Act in the proceedings initiated by the non-applicants herein. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the learned R.C.A. after appreciating the evidence on record in a right manner has given a finding in paragraph 14 of the impugned order that the relationship of landlord and tenant as pleaded in the application has been established. This Court also gave an anxious consideration to the pleadings as well as evidence on record. This Court also gave an anxious consideration to the pleadings as well as evidence on record. It be seen that Shri Girish Gupta is none else but the husband of the sister of landlady who was authorized to let out the premises in question on behalf the non-applicants herein. Shri Gupta has also been examined as a witness on behalf of the landlady. He has stated in his examination that the landlady is his wife's elder sister and she was residing with her husband at Raipur, so she had asked Girish Gupta to let out the subject premises. He has further stated that the landlady is owner of the subject accommodation and has no other accommodation of her own in the city of Jabalpur. He has also stated that after the death of the husband of the landlady, he has been appointed on compassionate ground at Jabalpur in Government Monoharlal Hargovind Home Science College. Thus, the requirement as pleaded by the landlady in her application is fully substantiated by the evidence on record. The evidence adduced by the applicants is totally insufficient to rebut the case of landlady. Thus, the finding of fact arrived at by the learned R.C.A. is liable to be maintained. As regards the objection of the learned counsel for the applicants that the subject premises was let out for composite purposes, it is suffice to say that though it is not proved that the subject premises was let out for composite purposes, otherwise also the premises let out for a composite purposes is liable to be get vacated in case of establishment of bona fide need for either purpose. In the result, there is no force in the revision application and the same is dismissed. However, without order as to costs.