Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 821 (MP)

Shyam Sunder Jangdey v. Kamla Shrivastava

2016-09-16

S.K.SETH

body2016
ORDER : S.K. SETH, J. 1. Heard. 2. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No.327/2015 and Civil Revision No.254/2016 as the facts and question of law are common in all the revisions. 3. The present applicants i.e. Arun Verma, Shyam Sunder Jangdey and Prashant Dharkar are in occupation of Shop no.1, Shop No.2 and Shop no.3 respectively. It is an admitted fact that these shops are situated in front of residential accommodation of respondent at Wright Town, Jabalpur. It is also not disputed that respondent under an agreement let-out these premises to applicants on payment of monthly rent for nonresidential purpose. 4. Respondent, a retired government servant filed an application for eviction under Section 23-A (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 setting her personal bona fide need to run coaching classes in the tenanted premises. It is alleged that she will run the coaching classes with the help of her elder sister and husband who will look after the administrative work and other incidentally matters for running the coaching classes. She, therefore, by a registered notice terminated the tenancy of above applicant as well as applicants in other two connected revisions. When they failed to handover the vacant possession of the tenanted premises in their occupation, she filed application under Section 23-A (1) (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 stating that she is the landlady of the accommodation which was let-out to the applicants on payment of monthly rent. 5. The applicants after notice, filed applications seeking leave to defend the matter which was duly granted by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur and thereafter they filed written statement admitting the fact that respondent is the landlady and the suit accommodation was given on monthly rent to the applicants, however, they denied the bona fide need set up by the landlady and stated that on the first floor, landlady has constructed identical shops which can be used for the purposes of running the coaching classes. With these pleadings, parties went to the trial. Learned Rent Controlling Authority after recording the evidence has found that the respondent had proved her bona fide need to get the vacant possession of the accommodation and, therefore, passed eviction orders directing the tenants to handover the vacant possession of the shops in their possession to the landlady within two months. 6. Learned Rent Controlling Authority after recording the evidence has found that the respondent had proved her bona fide need to get the vacant possession of the accommodation and, therefore, passed eviction orders directing the tenants to handover the vacant possession of the shops in their possession to the landlady within two months. 6. Against the said order of the Rent Controlling Authority, these revisions have been preferred under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. By order dated 04.09.2015 this Court directed the revisions to be listed for admission/final disposal at motion stage, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties matter is heard finally. 7. Shri A.K. Jain and Shri S.B. Agnihotri vehemently assailed the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and submitted that grave illegality has been committed by the Rent Controlling Authority in passing the eviction order. They submitted that with the availability of alternative accommodation of the first floor, the need set up by the respondent was fanciful. According to them, in fact the respondent wants to re-let the accommodation on a higher rent. In this connection they invited attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the landlady. In her cross-examination, landlady candidly accepted that on the first floor a super structure has been built without any shutter and, therefore, that was of no use or did not fulfil the requirement of landlady despite the super structure on the first floor. 8. Admittedly, landlady has no other reasonable suitable accommodation of her own in the city of Jabalpur except the residential use situated behind the shops. Her choice cannot be restricted. The Rent Controlling Authority after proper analysis of evidence has passed the order of eviction in favour of the respondent and in doing so, in the considered opinion of this Court; no illegality was committed by the Rent Controlling Authority. 9. Thus, I find no merit and substance in the revisions and hereby affirm the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants be given a year's time to vacant the premises. 11. Shri Shrivastava appearing for landlady opposed the prayer and submitted that she had filed the application for eviction in the year 2010 and more than 5 years have lapsed. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants be given a year's time to vacant the premises. 11. Shri Shrivastava appearing for landlady opposed the prayer and submitted that she had filed the application for eviction in the year 2010 and more than 5 years have lapsed. It is also pointed out that respondent is an old aged person who also lost her husband during the pendency of the litigation, therefore, granting one year's time to respondent is uncalled for and the prayer should not be allowed. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the applicants to handover the vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the respondent within a period of three months from today. They shall also file an undertaking to this effect before the Rent Controlling Authority within a period of 15 days from today. If they fail to submit the undertaking to this effect before the Rent Controlling Authority, they would not be entitled to avail the benefit of three months time granted by this Court as above and the respondent would be free to execute the eviction order in accordance with law. 13. If the applicant's handover the possession as directed above, the security amount deposited by them as per the lease agreement will be refunded subject to adjustment of arrears of rent, if any, on the date of handing over the possession. 14. Revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 15. Let a copy of this order be retained in the record of Civil Revision No.327/2015 & Civil Revision No.254/2016.