Naveen Chandra vs Lokumal

S.K. Pande, J.

Being aggrieved by order dated 3-4-99, passed by R.C.A. Burhanpur, in Case No. 5-A/90 ... 97-98, disallowing the application u/s 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter be referred as ''Act''), applicant/landlord has preferred this revision u/s 23-E of the Act.

Facts in brief are, late Chhaganlal Mehta was owner of the suit house No. 17, Ward No. 12, Itwara, Burhanpur. Non-applicant Lokumal was inducted into the tenancy of the ground floor of this house (hereinafter be referred as ''suit house'') on a monthly rent of Rs. 21/-. After some time, the first floor of the suit house had also come in possession of non-applicant. Natwarlal, son of late Chhaganlal Mehta executed a registered sale deed dated 18-2-87 in favour of applicant Naveen Chandra. Since then non-applicant Lokumal became tenant of applicant in the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 217- P.M. Applicant was in the service of the State of Maharashtra and had retired. Applicant''s father and other family members are resident of Burhanpur. His son is residing at Yavatmal (Maharashtra). Applicant filed application u/s 23-A of the Act seeking relief of eviction of tenant Lokumal on the ground that suit house is bona fide required by him for occupation as residence for himself and family members and he has no other reasonable, suitable residential accommodation of his own at Burhanpur. This application before the RCA, Burhanpur was registered as case No. 5-A/90 ... 97-98. Non-applicant Lokumal resisted the claim and stated that applicant

Naveen Chandra is not a retired employee of the State of Maharashtra and does not require bona fide the suit house for occupation as residence for himself. He has other reasonable, suitable residential accommodation of his own at Burhanpur. The suit house was purchased by him vide registered sale-deed dated 18-2-87 after the retirement from service. RCA vide impugned order dated 3-4-89 dismissed the application u/s 23-A on the ground that applicant since has purchased the suit house after his retirement and there is another house of his father at Burhanpur, he can not be said to be in bona fide need of the suit house for residence for himself or any member of his family.

It is an admitted fact that applicant Naveen Chandra has purchased the suit house from Natwarlal s/o Chhaganlal Mehta vide registered sale-deed dated 18-2-87. A retired Government servant acquiring accommodation after retirement, may file eviction application u/s 23-A. While dealing with the aspect aforesaid, the Division Bench of this Court in Jenendra Kumar v. Roshanlal 1994 JLJ 19 has held :--

"The language of the provision is wide enough to include retired Government servant who acquires accommodation after his retirement. The words, "retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence "Services" are capable of only one interpretation and that every retired Government servant is a landlord within the meaning of the provision and, therefore, entitled to invoke special jurisdiction u/s 23-A of the Act. 1987 MPRCJ 66, 1987 (1) MPWN 51, 1987 MPLJ 695, 1989 MPRCJ 1, 1990 (1) MPWN 19 and 1991 (1) MPWN 76 overruled. 1985 MPRCJ 178, C.R. No. 206 of 1989, CR. No. 151 of 1988 and 1991 JLJ 189 affirmed."

Further in Kunjulal Yadu and Others Vs. Parasram Sharma, it has been held that retired Government servants acquiring accommodation after retirement is entitled to invoke Section 23-A of the Act. This is an admitted fact that non-applicant Lokumal was inducted into the tenancy of the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 21/- by late Chhaganlal Mehta, whose son has executed a registered sale deed dated 18-2-87 in favour of applicant Naveen Chandra, therefore, non-applicant Lokumal has become tenant of the applicant. Lokumal (N.A.W. 1) in cross-examination (Para 5) has admitted that in the beginning ground floor of the suit house was let out to him. However, late Chhaganlal Mehta permitted him to occupy its first floor also by making payment of tax etc. Since then he has become tenant of the suit house consisting of ground floor and first floor respectively on a monthly rent of Rs. 21/- p.m.

Naveen Chand (A.W. 1) has stated that he has retired from the service of the State of Maharashtra with effect from 1-11-82. Exhibits P-7C, P-8C, P-9C are document to the effect that Naveen Chandra (A.W. 1) being in the service of the State of Maharashtra and retired w.c.f. 1-11-82. Accordingly, u/s 23-A of the Act, he is competent to file application u/s 23-A of the Act. This application was filed by him on 20-6-89. At the time of examination, this witness A.W. 1 on 18-10-93 was aged about 53 years. Naveen Chandra (A.W. 1) has stated that his father is owner of adjoining house wherein father and brothers are living. He has no share in the house held by his father. The suit house was purchased by him as he want to live at Burhanpur. There is no other house of his own at Burhanpur. At Yavatmal, plot was purchased by him and a portion of house has been constructed. However, his son is living in that house at Yavatmal. Mohanlal (A.W. 2) was examined in support of statement of Naveen Chand (A.W. 1). This witness has stated that except the suit house, applicant Naveen Chand has no other house of his own at Burhanpur. The suit house is bona fide required by him for occupation as residence for himself and his family. As against this Lokumal (N.A.W. 1) has stated that for last 10 years applicant Naveen Chand is living at Yavatmal. The suit house is not bona fide required by him for occupation as residence for himself and family. He has demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. This witness has admitted in the cross-examination that except for the house owned by his father applicant has no other accommodation of his own at Burhanpur. Naveen Chand (A.W. 1) has categorically stated that he was in the service of State of Maharashtra and retired with effect from 1-11-82. At Yavatmal, he is carrying on the work of construction. This is a touring job and he did not reside permanently at Yavatmal, This work of construction may be carried out by staying at Burhanpur. Father and other family members of applicant Naveen Chand are resident of Burhanpur. They are living in the house belonging to his father. The applicant is the owner of the suit house and he has no other reasonable alternative accommodation of his own at Burhanpur. If a retired Government servant intends to live at a place where the father and other families are living his statement of bona fide requirement must not be taken lightly. Naveen Chand (A. W. 1) has stated that suit house is bona fide required for occupation as residence for himself and family. This statement has been supported by Mohanlal (A.W. 2). As against the aforesaid evidence, there can not be any force in the statement of Lokumal (N.A.W. 1). The statement of A.W. 1, therefore, must have been accepted that the house constructed by him at Yavatmal is in occupation of his son. He is carrying with the construction work and for this touring job, he may reside at Burhanpur itself. His father and other family members are residing at Burhanpur and at this old age, he want to live at Burhanpur for which the suit house was purchased by him.

Aforesaid statement of Naveen Chand (A.W. 1) must be read with reference to Section 23-D (3) of the Act. In respect of an application by a landlord it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, the requirement by landlord with reference to Clause (a) or Clause (b) as the case may be of Section 23-A is bona fide. The presumption of course is rebutale, however, there is nothing in the statement of Lokumal (N.A.W. 1) to contradict the statement of Naveen Chand (A.W. 1), Mohanlal (A.W. 2). On facts aforesaid, the bona fide requirement of applicant/landlord for occupation as residence of himself and family of the suit house has been proved. He being a retired Government servant of State of Maharashtra is competent to seek eviction of tenant non-applicant u/s 23-A (a) of the Act.

The R.C.A. erred in rejecting the application of the applicant. Consequently, the revision succeeds. The impugned order dated 3-4-99 passed by R.C.A. in Case No. 5-A/90 ... 97-98 is set aside. Instead application u/s 23-A of the Act is allowed. It is ordered that non-applicant Lokumal shall vacate the suit house and deliver the possession to applicant Naveen Chand by 30th of November, 2003.

Non-applicant shall bear his cost and pay cost of the applicant. Counsel fees as per rule or certificate (whichever is less).