Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs Sushila Devi Jaswani

This revision is directed against the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in Case No.02/R.C.A./2010-11 by the Rent Controlling Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority"), Bairagarh Circle, Bhopal whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction was allowed.

Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent/landlady filed a suit for eviction before the RCA against the petitioner/tenant contending bona fide need of her son. As per the respondent, the suit shop was rented to the petitioner on 01.08.1986 for Rs.300/-per month for a period of 24 months. The Initial tenancy agreement ended on 31.07.1988. However, it was extended further at the request of the petitioner/tenant on the same terms and conditions. It was further her case that after the death of her husband on 15.03.2008, she sent a notice dated 27.05.2008 to the petitioner to vacate the premises,however, the tenant not only refused to vacate the shop but also did not pay the rent of three months. The Authority formed an opinion that there exists relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties and the suit premises is bona fidely required for the business of landlady's son.

Shri V.S.Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Authority, without discussing or assigning any reason as regards bona fide requirement, granted a decree for eviction. It is urged that the landlady has also failed to plead and prove that she has no other suitable non-residential accommodation of her own. Referring to statements of Smt. Sushila Devi Jaswani (PW.1) and Manoj Jaswani (PW.3), it is argued that the respondent/landlady after admitting having six shops in her possession, has failed to prove that how these accommodations are not sufficient for her son's need. In such circumstances, no decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide need could have been granted by the trial Court. It is further urged that the Authority has also erred in law in rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for bringing the subsequent events on record and under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing additional issues by orders dated 13.10.2011 and 18.03.2011, respectively.

Per contra, Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. It is argued that the landlady is free to choose more suitable accommodation for business of her son, and she could not be dictated by the tenant as to from which shop her son should start operating his business. Reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi reported in (2016) 10 SCC 209.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The landlady has filed an application under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act,1961 before the RCA for eviction of the tenant from the suit shop on the ground of bona fide requirement of her son. The petitioner/tenant, in his evidence, has also admitted the tenancy. One of the clause in the tenancy agreement, executed and signed by the parties, mentions that the tenant will vacate the premises as and when required by the landlady. The authority while passing the order has also relied on the said agreement.

The contention of the petitioner that the Authority has not discussed or applied its mind to the evidence on record holds no substance. It is seen that the Authority has elaborately discussed the evidence while deciding the Issue No.(c). It is to be noted that the respondent/landlady in para 4 of the plaint had pleaded that her son has no other shop available. In her evidence, Sushila Devi Jaswani (PW.1) has admitted having other shops, but has also stated that none of the shops are vacant. Deepak (PW.2) has also deposed that he has no other premises available for doing his business.

In Bhupinder Singh Bawa (supra), the Apex Court has held thus :-

"12. In light of the above, the Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premises were lying vacant for running business of the respondent's son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 15 SCC 610 to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to which shop her son should start the business from."

The Authority, after considering the facts of the case and on the basis of evidence of the parties, has recorded a finding in favour of the respondent/landlady. The reasoning given by the Authority is, thus, based on appropriate appreciation of facts and law. The power of revision conferred on the High Court is very wide, and the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction has the power to look into the correctness of findings arrived at by the Authority, but while examining the correctness of the findings, could not act as a Court of appeal, and re-appreciate the evidence to come to its own conclusion.

As regards the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC which were dismissed vide orders dated 13.10.2011 and 18.03.2011, respectively, it is seen that the order dated 13.10.2011 was challenged by way of filing C.R. No.448/2011 before this Court which came to be dismissed on 16.02.2012. The order dated 18.03.2011 was not challenged any further, hence, became final.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled legal proposition of law afore-discussed, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Authority warranting any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/tenant is directed to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the suit shop to the respondent/landlady within a period of two months. He shall also file an undertaking to this effect before the Rent Controlling Authority within a period of

15 days from today. If the petitioner fails to submit the undertaking, as directed aforesaid, the respondent/landlady would be free to execute the eviction order prior to two months.

Let record be sent back to the concerned Rent Controlling Authority, forthwith.

With the aforesaid directions, the revision petition stands dismissed.