Judgment: Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the applicant has assailed the validity of the orders dated 4-1-2013 and 8-2-2013 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority by which the application preferred by the non-applicants under Section 23-A(b) of the Act, has been allowed. Background facts leading to filing of the revision briefly stated are that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act on the ground that they have retired as Surgeon and Doctor, respectively from the Health Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The accommodation in question, which admeasures 1007 sq. ft. situated in Mansarovar Complex, Bhopal, was let out to the applicant/tenant for a period from 14-8-2007 to 15-8-2008, and the non-applicants bonafide need the accommodation for the purposes of opening a mini-operation theatre and a clinic and that they do not have any other alternative suitable accommodation. It was further pleaded that by a notice dated 5-9-2008, the tenancy of the applicant was terminated and thereafter, an application for eviction was filed. The applicant herein filed an application under Section 23C(1) of the Act seeking leave to contest prayer for eviction, which was allowed, pursuant to which she filed the written statement. It was inter alia pleaded in the written statement that the non-applicants have initiated a proceeding for eviction as they want the rent at the enhanced rate. It was further pleaded that the non-applicants have suitable alternative accommodation in the city of Bhopal and since the non-applicants have acquired the accommodation after their superannuation, therefore, they do not fall within the purview of Section 23-J of the Act. 2. The non-applicants adduced their evidence in support of their claim, however, the applicant/tenant failed to adduce evidence despite opportunity being granted. The Rent Controlling Authority by order dated 4-1-2013, which was amended subsequently vide order dated 8-2-2013, passed an order of eviction against the applicant. In the aforesaid factual background, the applicant has approached this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by the non-applicants before the Rent Controlling Authority is vitiated in law, as the summons were not served on the applicant in the form specified in IInd Schedule appended to the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, the applicant has approached this Court. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by the non-applicants before the Rent Controlling Authority is vitiated in law, as the summons were not served on the applicant in the form specified in IInd Schedule appended to the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has referred to decisions in the case of Uttam Rajak Vs. Smt. Shanti Bai Chouksey, AIR 2007 (CG) 133 and Satyanjay Tripathi and another Vs. Banarsi Devi, 2011 (3) M.P.H.T. 28 : 2011 (2) MPLJ 690 . It was further submitted that the landlords have failed to prove that they belong to the category specified under Section 23-J of the Act, as only photocopies of the Pension Payment Order namely Exhs. P-1 and P-2 were filed, which were admitted in evidence, despite objection raised by the applicant. In this connection, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Karri Chinna Venkata Reddy and others, AIR 1994 SC 591 . It is also submitted that the non-applicants have failed to disclose the alternative accommodation available to them as well as to plead its unsuitability and have also failed to prove that the accommodation in question is suitable for the purpose of non-applicants. In this connection, reliance has been placed in the case of Hakimuddin Saifi Vs. Prem Narayan Barchhiha, 1998 (1) MPLJ 203 and Gyasi Nayak Vs. Gyanchandra Jain, 2010 (3) MPLJ 203 . It is urged that opportunity to lead evidence ought to have been granted to the applicant, and an application in this revision in this behalf has been filed. It is also urged that competence of a person to do business is also required to be proved. In this connection, reference has been made to a decision in the case of Rakhav Lal Vs. Sardar Kirpal Singh, 2007 (4) M.P.H.T. 339 . It is argued that even if the tenant does not lead any evidence, yet the landlord is required to prove all the ingredients of eviction. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision in the cases of Daulat Singh s/o Parmanand Dangi Vs. Devi Singh (dead) through his LRs. Chain Singh, 2011 (2) MPLJ 328 and Ramdas Vs. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision in the cases of Daulat Singh s/o Parmanand Dangi Vs. Devi Singh (dead) through his LRs. Chain Singh, 2011 (2) MPLJ 328 and Ramdas Vs. Smt. Shakuntaladevi, 1995 JLJ 272 . Lastly, it is argued that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is narrower than an appeal, but wider than revision. In support of aforesaid proposition, reference has been made to the decision in the cases of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. Raj Kumar, 2002 (5) SCJT 69 : 2002 (1) MPLJ 40 and Surtyomal Vs. Smt Chandabai, 2005 (5) M.P.H.T. 333 . 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicants has pointed out that on 16-1-2009, the summons were served on the applicant and on 28-1 -2009, an application under Section 23-C(1) of the Act was filed seeking leave to defend. The aforesaid application was granted by the Rent Controlling Authority by order dated 4-5-2009 pursuant to which the written statement was filed by the applicant on 27-7-2009 and thereafter, the issues were framed on 3-8-2009. It is further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant as the applicant has waived the requirement of service in notice in the form prescribed in IInd Schedule appended to the Act. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Krishan Lal Vs. State of J. & K. (1994) 4 SCC 422 , Abdul Salam Vs. Hans Raj, 1996 Rajdhani Law Reporter (FB) 71, Martin & Harris Ltd. Vs. VIth Additional Distt. Judge and others, (1998) 1 SCC 732 , Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Virgo Steels, Bombay and another, (2002) 4 SCC 316 , Prakash H. Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes (Ms). (2003) 8 SCC 431 , State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 and M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 6 SCC 237. It is also submitted that on 2-5-2011, the applicant's right to cross-examination was closed and the aforesaid order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 238/2011, which was decided by order dated 10-2-2012 and the applicant was granted one more opportunity for cross-examination. It was pointed out that despite six opportunities being afforded to the applicant by the Rent Controlling Authority, the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence and, therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the applicant. It was pointed out that despite six opportunities being afforded to the applicant by the Rent Controlling Authority, the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence and, therefore, no indulgence can be shown to the applicant. It is also argued that no application has been filed before the Rent Controlling Authority by the applicant seeking opportunity to adduce evidence and, therefore, in this revision, the application seeking opportunity to lead evidence should not be entertained. Lastly, it is submitted that no suitable alternative accommodation is available to the non-applicants and this aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Rent Controlling Authority in detail and, therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority does not call for any interference. 5. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the record, it is evident that on 27-12-2008, an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act was filed by the non-applicants. On 16-1-2009, the applicant was served with the summons of the proceeding and on 21 -1-2009, the applicant entered appearance in the proceeding through her Counsel. Thereafter, an application under Section 23-C(1) of the Act was filed by the applicant seeking leave to contest the prayer for eviction on 28-1-2009. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Rent Controlling Authority by order dated 4-5-2009 in pursuance to which the applicant filed the written statement on 27-7-2009 and thereafter, the issues were framed by the Rent Controlling Authority on 3-8-2009. On 23-2-2010, the cross-examination of the non-applicant No. 1 commenced, which was completed on 4-3-2010. Thereafter, the applicant filed her examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thereafter, on 2-5-2011, the applicant's right to cross-examine the non-applicants and their witnesses was closed. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in Civil Revision No. 238/2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10-2-2012 and the applicant was granted one more opportunity to lead evidence. 6. Thereafter, on 21-3-2012, the case was fixed for applicant's evidence and was adjourned to 20-4-2012. The applicant filed an application for adjournment along with medical reports. Accordingly, the proceeding was adjourned to 11-6-2012. 6. Thereafter, on 21-3-2012, the case was fixed for applicant's evidence and was adjourned to 20-4-2012. The applicant filed an application for adjournment along with medical reports. Accordingly, the proceeding was adjourned to 11-6-2012. On 11-6-2012 also, an adjournment was sought by the applicant and the proceeding was adjourned by way of last indulgence and the applicant was informed that the right to adduce evidence would be closed. Thereafter, the proceeding was adjourned for evidence of the applicant from time to time, i.e., on 17-10-2012, 23-10-2012, 6-11-2012 and 21-11-2012, respectively. However, on 21-11-2012, neither the applicant nor her Counsel remained present. Thus, the Rent Controlling Authority was left with no option but to close the right of the applicant to adduce evidence. Thus, six opportunities were granted to the applicant to adduce evidence, which she failed to avail. Thereafter, on 4-12-2012 as well as on 26-12-2012, no application was filed by the applicant seeking opportunity to adduce evidence. The Rent Controlling Authority thereafter, heard the arguments and passed the order of eviction. 7. Thus, from the above narration of facts, it is graphically clear that the applicant/tenant after receipt of summons of the proceeding entered appearance through her Counsel and filed an application for leave to defend and eventually, filed the written statement. The applicant nowhere in the proceeding before the Rent Controlling Authority has made a grievance with regard to service of summons in the prescribed form. The applicant has duly participated in the proceeding and was fully aware about the nature of proceeding. In other words, it is not the case of the applicant that she has suffered prejudice or was misled on account of noncompliance of Section 23-B(1) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the question, whether the provision in question is mandatory and the same can be waived or not, need not be dealt with. The decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant in the case of Satyanjay Tripathi (supra), is of no assistance as in that case the tenant could not file the application seeking the leave to defend on account of non-receipt of summons in the form prescribed under Section 23-B(1) of the Act. Therefore, the contention that the proceeding before the Rent Controlling Authority is vitiated in law does not deserve acceptance. 8. Therefore, the contention that the proceeding before the Rent Controlling Authority is vitiated in law does not deserve acceptance. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in Para 1 of the application filed under Section 23-A(b) of the Act, the non-applicants have stated that they are retired medical practitioners. However, in Paragraph 1 of the written statement, the aforesaid fact has not specifically been denied by the applicant. The applicant has only stated that the non-applicants have not mentioned their dates of retirement. It is trite law that if an averment of fact is not denied by the other side, the same is taken to be accepted. See: M. Venkataramana Hebbar (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others, (2007) 6 SCC 401 . Therefore, the contention raised by the applicant that the non-applicants have failed to prove that they do not belong to the category specified under Section 23-A of the Act also cannot be accepted. 9. From the statement of the non-applicant No. 1, it is evident that the non-applicants have been able to establish that they do not have any suitable alternative accommodation. The accommodation in question is situated at Mansarovar Complex. The accommodation at Alkapuri is a residential accommodation and the accommodation at Jawahar Chowk is insufficient as the two shops admeasures 200 sq. ft. each. Therefore, the accommodation situated at Bus Stop No. 6 where the clinic is being run, is a rented accommodation. The non-applicants have pleaded and proved the ingredients, required to be pleaded and proved under Section 23-A(b) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case, the applicant has not led any evidence. Section 23-D(3) of the Act reads as under:-- "23-D. Procedure to be followed by Rent Controlling Authority or grant of leave to tenant to contest.-- (1) ** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) In respect of an application by a landlord it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, the requirement by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of Section 23-A is bonafide." Thus, the statute attaches a presumption to the bonafide need of the landlord, which has not been rebutted by the applicant by leading evidence. Therefore, the contention that the non-applicants have failed to prove their bonafide need or that they have any suitable alternative accommodation cannot be accepted. 10. From the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that after the order was passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 238/11 on 10-2-2012, six opportunities, i.e., on 20-4-2012, 11-6-2012, 19-6-2012, 17-10-2012, 23-10-2012 and 6-11-2012 were granted to the applicant to adduce evidence. However, neither the applicant nor her Counsel appeared on 21-11-2012, therefore, the right of the applicant to adduce evidence was closed. Thus, it is evident that sufficient opportunities were granted to the applicant. The Supreme Court in the case of Noor Mohammed Vs. Jethanand and another, (2013) 5 SCC 201 has held that repeated adjournments amounts to abuse of procedure. It has further been held that access to speedy justice is a human right and the practice of asking for and grant of repeated adjournments in routine manner has been deprecated. In view of the aforesaid view taken by the Supreme Court and in the facts of the case, the Rent Controlling Authority has rightly closed the right of the applicant to adduce evidence especially in view of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 238/2011 and in view of Section 23-D(2) of the Act, which provides that the Rent Controlling Authority shall hold an enquiry and follow as far as practicable the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. Section 23-D(2) of the Act reads as under:-- "23-D. Procedure to be followed by Rent Controlling Authority or grant of leave to tenant to contest.-- (1) *** *** *** (2) The Rent Controlling Authority shall, while holding an enquiry in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow as far as practicable, the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence under the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887). The Rent Controlling Authority shall as far as possible, proceed with the hearing of the application from day to day." Even after closure of the evidence, the applicant neither filed any application seeking opportunity to lead evidence on 4-12-2012 and 26-12-2012 nor has challenged the order dated 21-11-2012 before the Higher Forum, therefore, in the revision, I am not inclined to entertain the application filed by the applicant seeking opportunity to lead evidence. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Section 23-E of the Act. 12. However, since the applicant is in possession of the accommodation in question, 1 deem it appropriate to grant some reasonable time to the applicant to vacate the premises upto 30th November, 2014, subject to following conditions:-- "(a) That the applicant shall furnish an undertaking within a period of four weeks from today before the Rent Controlling Authority that she shall handover the possession to the non-applicants in a peaceful manner on or before 30th November, 2014 and shall not create any third party interest. In case, such an undertaking is furnished, the applicant shall be permitted to occupy the accommodation up to 31st October, 2014. (b) That the applicant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent within a period of one month from today and shall continue to comply with the provisions under Section 23(h)of the Act during the period for which the accommodation remains in her possession. © In case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid directions, the decree of eviction shall become executable forthwith." Accordingly, the revision is disposed of.