Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 867 (MP)

Manju Gupta v. Ratnakar Parashar

2016-09-26

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2016
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.2016 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, District Gwalior directing eviction of the shop, this revision has been preferred by the applicant. 2. The facts giving rise to file the present revision, briefly stated, are that respondent is a retired employee from the PHE Department and he owned the house bearing No.908, Ward No.59, Naya Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. In the ground floor of the said premises in one of the shop the applicant-tenant is doing the business in the name of M/s. Rajesh Traders the map is attached. It is urged that the tenancy was in writing, on monthly rent of Rs.300/-. The applicant-tenant herein paid rent only up to 30.9.2007, thereafter the rent has not been paid. It is specifically contended that in the disputed house three shops are situated; one is on rent with the applicant and other two shops are on rent with Shrinath Ji Traders and one Ashok. The applicant is not having any reasonable suitable alternative accommodation and he want to do the business of Seeds and Pesticides, therefore, the same is required bona fide to do his own business. In view of the aforesaid, it is contended that the decree of eviction may be passed. 3. The applicant-tenant has filed the reply to the application inter alia not disputing the fact that tenancy was written. It is said the premises cannot be evicted unlawfully. The tenant has paid rent in advance of Rs.12,000/- has not been adjusted. The landlord gave the notice in the year 2003 but after increase of rent no proceedings were drawn. However, it cannot be accepted that need of landlord is bona fide. It is also stated that in the premises three shops are situated, however, it cannot be said that the landlord is not having any other reasonable, suitable, alternative accommodation for his own business. The premises is also not suitable for doing the business of Seeds and Pesticides, and therefore, the eviction may not be directed. 4. Learned Rent Controlling Authority, District Gwalior after framing the issues recorded the finding that no reasonable, suitable, alternative accommodation is available, more so the landlord comes within the special category as defined under section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and this suit shop is required bona fide, therefore, the order directing eviction has been passed. 5. 4. Learned Rent Controlling Authority, District Gwalior after framing the issues recorded the finding that no reasonable, suitable, alternative accommodation is available, more so the landlord comes within the special category as defined under section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act and this suit shop is required bona fide, therefore, the order directing eviction has been passed. 5. Learned senior counsel has strenuously urged that looking to the order passed by Rent Controlling Authority, it is apparent that without referring the documents and without recording findings the order impugned has been passed. Therefore, such an order directing eviction is without application of mind and is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel further conceded that in case this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned has rightly been passed then at least six months time may be granted to vacate the premises. 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has read over the statements of landlord as well as the tenant and also their cross examination and the documents as produced before the Court inter alia contended that looking to the said material available on record it is apparent that landlord comes under the special category and the suit premises is required bona fide to do his own business to which he is not possessing any other reasonbly, suitable, alternative accommodation, therefore, the decree of eviction has been passed. 7. After hearing learned senior counsel for the applicant and also learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the statement of landlord as well as the statement of the witnesses deposed by him and also the statement of witnesses of the tenant and looking to the documents as produced, it is apparent that the respondent-landlord after demitting the Government office from PHE department is unemployed and willing to do his own business of Seeds and Pesticides. It is proved that he falls within the purview of the special category of landlord. It is further stated that he want to do the business of his own for which he is not having any reasonably, suitable, alternative, accommodation in the township of Gwalior. The aforesaid fact finds support from the oral testimony as well as documents on record. The applicant-tenant is unable to brought any cogent evidence disprove the said plea. 8. It is further stated that he want to do the business of his own for which he is not having any reasonably, suitable, alternative, accommodation in the township of Gwalior. The aforesaid fact finds support from the oral testimony as well as documents on record. The applicant-tenant is unable to brought any cogent evidence disprove the said plea. 8. In that view of the matter, looking to the material available on record the application under section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act cannot be dismissed and liable to be allowed. Thus, looking to the material brought on record it is to be held that the suit premises required bonafide by the landlord to which he is not having any reasonable, suitable, alternative accommodation in the township of Gwalior. 9. In view of the foregoing, in my considered opinion the finding as recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority, District Gwalior allowing the application of the landlord does not warrant any interference. At this stage, counsel for the respondent/landlord also agreed to grant six months time to the aplicant-tenant to vacate the suit premises. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be desirable to grant time to vacate the premises on or before 31.3.2017 subject to compliance of the following conditions :- (i) that applicant shall file an affidavit before the executing Court, to undertake to deposit the regular rent on or before 15th day of every month and pay the arrears of rent, if any, within a month. (ii) An undertaking shall also be filed before the executing Court that applicant shall deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 31.3.2007 and shall not parted with the possession of the suit premises creating third party right during such time. (iii) An undertaking shall also be furnished by the applicant to the effect that if the suit premises is not vacated on or before the said date, in that event, she shall pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per day to the respondent in addition to the amount of rent. (iv) The said affidavit and undertaking shall be submitted within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. On violation of any of the conditions enumerated herein above, the respondent would be entitled to get executed the decree in accordance with law. 11. (iv) The said affidavit and undertaking shall be submitted within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. On violation of any of the conditions enumerated herein above, the respondent would be entitled to get executed the decree in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid, this revision is disposed of. N. K. Gupta with Rahul Gupta for applicant; B. B. Shukla for respondent.