Bhanwar Singh Chandmal Kothari and Another vs Smt. Chameli Bai

S.B. Sakrikar, J.

The unsuccessful tenant/applicants have directed this revision u/s 23A of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, ''the Act'') against the order dated 28th December, 1996 rendered by the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, ''the RCA) Indore in case No. A/90(7)/92, thereby allowing the petition filed by the non-applicant landlady for their eviction from the suit accommodation.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant is the owner of the house bearing No. 574 situated at M. G. Road, Indore and one of the shops of the said house was let to the father of the applicants for non residential purpose. After the death of the applicant''s father, said shop is lying vacant for the last 15 years. Monthly rent of the said shop is Rs. 12.50. It is not disputed that non-applicant/landlady belonging to the category staled in Section 23J of the Act. The non-applicant filed the application before the RCA u/s 23A of the Act for eviction of her tenant/applicants on the grounds of bona fide requirement of the suit shop for expansion of the business of her son, Manoj. In the application it is also stated that the applicants are not regular in payment of rent and they are in arrears of rent.

The application was contested after seeking permission to defend the application. The applicants in their reply contended that the alleged need of the landlady is not genuine or bona fide. It is also stated in the reply that the non-applicant/landlady is possessed of reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of her own in the city of Indore, for her alleged need. The RCA, on framing issues and recording evidence of the parties, allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and ordered eviction of the applicants from the suit accommodation on the ground that the suit-accommodation is bona fide required by the non-applicant for expanding the business of her major son, Manoj. The applicant/tenants, on service of notice did not comply with the provision of Section 13(1) of the Act and on the application of the non-applicant, their defence was closed u/s 13(6) of the Act vide order dated 17-2-1997. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision petition.

The counsel for the applicant contended that from the evidence, it is proved that Manoj, major son of the non-applicant is already in occupation of one of the shops of the same building and carrying on his business. He also submitted that from the evidence it is also proved that the non-applicant is in occupation of reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of her own in Indore sufficient for the alleged need. The RCA committed an error in closing defence u/s 13(6) of the Act and recording the findings against the applicants on the point of genuine requirement of the suit accommodation and passing the order of eviction against the applicants.

As against this, the counsel for the non-applicant contended that the impugned order of RCA is passed on evaluating the evidence of the parties available on record. No inherent illegality or perversity is apparent in recording the findings on the point of genuine requirement in favour of the non-applicant. The counsel submitted that this is a petition filed u/s 23E of the Act and the jurisdiction of this Court is limited and narrower than that of the appeal and that in the circumstances, no interference is necessary in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The counsel also submitted that the RCA has committed no error in closing the defence of the applicants u/s 13(6) of the Act and permitted the applicant to cross-examine the non-applicant''s witnesses for the limited scope for demolishing the case as set up by the non-applicant. Reliance is placed on the decision of Mohd. Mohamood Hussain v. Asad Ulla Usmani, 1997 (II) MPJR 145 and on unreported decision of this Court in case of Munnalal v. Kailash Chandra, C.R. No. 255/97; decided on 29-7-1997.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties, perused the record as also the impugned order.

Before considering the matter on merits, I consider it proper to examine the limitations of this Court in exercising revisional powers u/s 23E of the Act. While considering the scope of Section 23-E of the Act, this Court in Munnalal''s case (supra) has held that-

Powers available to this Court u/s 23E of the Act are wider than one u/s 115, CPC but narrower than the powers of appeal.

It is also held that while exercising powers u/s 23-E of the Act, this Court is not supposed to enter into merits of the factual controversies between the parties and reverse the findings of facts in this regard.

In case of Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Dharamchand Jain 1986 MPLJ 80 1986 JLJ 145 taking similar view, this Court has also held as under:-

"The powers of the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction has the power to look into correctness of the finding regarding bona fide need of the landlord. This is howsoever not to say that in examining the correctness of the finding, this Court would act as the Court of appeal and re-appreciate the evidence to come to his own conclusion."

In case of Kailash Chandra and Bros. and Others Vs. Dr. Kamla Chaudhary, , this Court has also held that powers of this Court u/s 23E of the Act are wider than u/s 115, CPC and lesser than appellate powers. If the findings recorded by the RCA are not perverse, no interference can be made under the aforesaid provisions. The same view is expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of B. Johnson v. C. S. Naidu 1985 MPLJ 675, 1985 JLJ 793 and the Apex Court in case of Hiralal Kapur Vs. Prabhu Choudhury, .

In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court and the Apex Court, it is clear that this Court while exercising powers u/s 23E of the Act has the jurisdiction to look into the correctness of the finding recorded on the bonafide need of the landlady. However, it does not mean that in examining the correctness of the findings, this Court would act as the court of appeal and reappreciates the evidence to come to its own conclusion.

Considering the evidence available on record of the present case in the context of the aforesaid position of law, I do not find that the findings of RCA on the point of bona fide requirement of the non-applicant/landlady is illegal or perverse.

Non-applicant Smt. Chamelibai (PW 1) and her son Manoj in their statement categorically stated that the shop which is in occupation of Manoj is very small and situated at the back side of the main road. They also stated that the shop in occupation of the applicants is located on the main road and the shop occupied by Manoj and the applicant are situated in the same building. They also stated that one of the shops vacated by the tenant is not suitable for the business of said Manoj, as it is situated in other building and admeasuring only 4'' x 4''. On perusal of the record, it also emerged that RCA has committed no error in striking out the defence of the applicants as the applicants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act. It also emerged that after passing the aforesaid order, the RCA permitted the applicants to cross-examine non-applicant and her witnesses for the limited purpose for demolishing the case as set up against the applicants. As such at this stage of revision, no interference is required in the order of the RCA striking out the defence of the applicants u/s 13(6) of the Act..

In view of the facts and the evidence of the case available on record and the law applicable, I do not find that the RCA has committed any error in recording the finding in favour of the non-applicant on the point of genuine requirement of the suit accommodation for the need of the non-applicant''s son Manoj for the expansion of his business. The impugned order of the RCA is based on proper evaluation of the evidence available on record requiring no interference in this revision petition.

Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit and substance is, accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.