Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 435 (MP)

Poonam Meena v. Meera Poddar

2012-04-23

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2012
Judgment This revision is directed against the order dated 23-8-2011 passed in Case No. 10/RCA/2009-10 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Capital Project, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent being a widow, a specified landlady defined under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act'), approached the Rent Controlling Authority by way of filing an application under Section 23-A of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner, a tenant in the demise residential premises, on the ground that the respondent was issue-less lady, her husband has died and she was not keeping good health and she was in need of a family member to look after her. It was contended by the respondent in her application that the petitioner was introduced by a neighbour to the respondent and believing that the petitioner will also look after the old aged lady like the respondent, in good faith, a room was let out to the petitioner by the respondent. However, the respondent in the later stage started feeling that she is not to depend on such a tenant, rather it would be appropriate for the respondent to seek assistance of her own brother and for the said purposes, the respondent was in bonafide need of demise premises so that she may accommodate her own brother in the said premises for the purposes of looking after the respondent. 3. The said application filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply and it was contended that such a plea raised by the respondent was not correct. Allegations were made that sufficient accommodation was available in the said suit house to accommodate the brother of the respondent in case any assistance was needed by the respondent. It was contended that the application has been filed with bonafide intention to get the suit accommodation vacated so that the same may be let out to other persons on a higher rent. The Rent Controlling Authority recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plea of bonafide need was made out, therefore, passed the impugned order of eviction of the petitioner, which is sought to be challenged in this revision. 4. The Rent Controlling Authority recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the plea of bonafide need was made out, therefore, passed the impugned order of eviction of the petitioner, which is sought to be challenged in this revision. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondent has adduced the evidence and in her own statement, she has admitted this fact that there is other accommodation available in the very same suit house, but she is not intending to let it out to the petitioner. She has categorically contended that she is not willing to keep such a person as a tenant in her house, who is creating nuisance. From this, it is contended that there was no bonafide need for getting the suit house vacated by eviction of the petitioner and since this particular piece of evidence is not taken into account by the Rent Controlling Authority, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the Rent Controlling Authority has not considered the aspect that the bonafide need was for the purposes of accommodating the brother of the respondent and, therefore, since admittedly the brother of the respondent is not living jointly with the respondent, such a need was not made out in view of the definition of the member of the family as given in Section 2 (e) of the Act. It is contended that these aspects have not been looked into by the Rent Controlling Authority, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent is a Maharashtrian lady and merely because something is stated by her in her statement, because of the language, it cannot be said that the respondent has shown as if she is having the accommodation in the very same premises but is not willing to let it out to the petitioner. Further, it is pointed out that the petitioner has filed the proceedings before the Civil Court with respect to the very same premises against the respondent. Further, it is pointed out that the petitioner has filed the proceedings before the Civil Court with respect to the very same premises against the respondent. It is contended that the statements of witnesses were recorded in the said proceedings pending before the Civil Court and if such statements are compared, it would be clear that the respondent has not shown an intention to get the suit accommodation vacated by the petitioner for the purposes of letting it out to someone else as she is not willing to accept petitioner as tenant at any cost. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that what is the requirement of the claimant/applicant, that is to be examined and not that of the person, who is to be accommodated. The requirement is that of the respondent as she is an old aged ailing lady and she wants to keep her own brother with her in the accommodation to look after her. This being the requirement of the respondent, it cannot be said that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is bad in law. It is, thus, contended that there is no force in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. After due consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent has made out a case for passing of an order of eviction against the petitioner. The fact remains that the need shown by the respondent in her application made under Section 23-A of the Act is that she being a widow issue-less lady, wants to keep her own brother with her so that he may look after the respondent at the time of need. It is not the requirement of the brother of the respondent to live with the respondent. Therefore, it is not to be seen whether the requirement of the brother is there nor this particular aspect is required to be considered. The definition of the member of the family as given in Section 2 (e) of the Act if looked into, will mean that for need of the member of the family, who is living together with the owner/landlord of the premises, the demise premises can be got vacated by the landlord. The definition of the member of the family as given in Section 2 (e) of the Act if looked into, will mean that for need of the member of the family, who is living together with the owner/landlord of the premises, the demise premises can be got vacated by the landlord. This is what provided in the relevant provisions of the Act, but if the need is that of the landlord, and specifically, the pleadings are made in that respect, the condition of such a member of the family living jointly with the landlord will not be attracted at all. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Laltapmsad Shivcharanlal Vs. Ramcharan Hiralal Vijayvargiya, 1989 MPLJ 233 , is thus of no help to the petitioner. Had it been the case that the need is shown that the brother of the respondent needs the accommodation for his residential purposes, then only the condition of living jointly by such a brother with the respondent was required to be satisfied. This being so, such an objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted nor can it be said that because of non-consideration of such an objection, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is bad in law. 7. The other aspect is whether merely because the respondent has contended in her statement that she was not willing to let out any part of the demise premises to the petitioner, could it be said that the need of the respondent was imaginary. In the entire statement, if examined, it has been categorically stated by the respondent that after the death of her husband, she needs the assistance from her brother. Instances have been pointed out by the respondent that certain nuisances were created by the petitioner and for getting it repaired, the respondent was required to ask her brother to come. If as a whole the statement is read, it will be clear that the respondent being a Maharashtrian lady, less conversant with Hindi language, had made certain averments in her statement without properly understanding what she was stating or what would be the meaning of such statement. Because of such stray sentences, could it be said that a genuine need of respondent, a widow lady, for getting the accommodation vacated is not made out. Because of such stray sentences, could it be said that a genuine need of respondent, a widow lady, for getting the accommodation vacated is not made out. If the order impugned is considered in this view, it will be clear that there was proper appreciation of evidence by the Rent Controlling Authority and rightly an order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, there is no need of interference in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. Looking to the fact that the petitioner was. occupying the premises demised to her and she is still continuing in possession of the same in view of the interim order passed by this Court, it is directed that the petitioner will deliver the vacant possession of the demise premises to the respondent by 1st July, 2012. In case the vacant possession of the demise premises is not delivered to the respondent by the said time, the warrant of possession be immediately issued in favour of the respondent. 9. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.