JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15-5-2012 passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Betul in Case No. 1-A/90(7)/201 1-2012 whereby the application of plaintiff-respondent filed under section 23-A for eviction has been allowed and eviction decree has been passed against the present applicant, this revision under section 23-E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short Act of 1961) has been filed. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that respondent-plaintiff filed an application under section 23-A of the Act of 1961 on the averment that she being the widow comes within the ambit and sweep of specific landlord described under section 23-A (a) of the Act of 1961 and because the suit accommodation is required for the bona fide need of residence of her sons, therefore, the present application has been filed praying that the application of eviction be decreed. 3. After obtaining leave to defend, the present applicant-defendant filed written-statement and denied the averments made in the application. The learned Rent Controlling Authority allowed the application of eviction and passed a decree against the present applicant/tenant. In this manner, this revision application has been filed. 4. The contention of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant-tenant is that as per plaintiffs own showing the suit accommodation was let-out for non-residential purpose and it is a non-residential accommodation and, therefore, the application of eviction deserves to be dismissed because the same has been filed against the tenant-applicant of this revision for eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the residence of the respondent's sons. In this regard my attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the applicant paras 3 and 4 of the eviction application wherein it has been pleaded by the landlord-respondent that suit accommodation is non-residential and it was let-out for the same purpose. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this revision application the impugned eviction decree be set aside and application of eviction filed by the respondent-landlord be dismissed. 5. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this revision application the impugned eviction decree be set aside and application of eviction filed by the respondent-landlord be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that such an objection was never taken by the defendant-tenant in the application seeking leave to defend and the same was also not taken in the written-statement and, therefore, now he cannot be allowed to raise this objection and thus it has been prayed that this revision be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to be allowed. 7. On bare perusal of the eviction application it is found that it is landlord's own case that the suit accommodation is non residential and it was let-out for office purpose of the LIC Housing Finance Limited. Thus, when the plaintiffs own case demonstrates that suit accommodation is non-residential and for that purpose only it was let-out, the application of eviction which has been filed for the bona fide need of respondent's sons for their residence cannot be decreed. In this context, section 23-A (a) is very clear. For ready reference, it would be fruitful to quote the aforesaid provision which reads thus :- "23-A. Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement-....................... (a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Explanation - - For the purposes of this clause, "accommodation let for residential purposes" includes :- (i) any accommodation which have been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for any non-residential purpose; (ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose." On bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, indeed the maxim candit questio (the matter admits no further argument) is applicable in this regard since the law itself is very clear and, therefore, according to me, the learned Rent Controlling Authority erred in law in allowing the application by passing the impugned order and, accordingly the same is set aside. 8. Resultantly, this revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is hereby set aside and the application of eviction filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord stands rejected. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.