Smt. Maya Trivedi vs Rajnikant Tiwari

S.K. Pande, J.—These revisions u/s 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to the "Act" for convenience), are directed against the order dated 31-5-2003 passed by R.C.A., Jabalpur in Eviction Case Nos. 55-A/90 (7) 2002, 53-A/90 (7) 2002, 54-A/90 (7) 20,02, whereby, petitioner''s applications u/s 23-A (b) of the Act seeking eviction of tenants have been dismissed.

Admittedly, respondents are tenants of the petitioner in the suit premises Nos. 1040, 1039, Ravindra Nagar, Adhartal, Jabalpur. Petitioner filed applications u/s 23-A (b) of the Act before the RCA seeking their eviction on the ground that the suit premises are bona fide required for starting a business by her major son Sandeep Trivedi who at present is a jobless person. The applications were resisted by the respondents stating inter alia that the petitioner although is recovering rent from the respondents, as per Municipal Record, is not the owner of the suit premises. Since, she intended to dispossess the respondents unlawfully, C.S. No. 311-A/2001 was instituted by them before the 7th Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur. Vide judgment dated 15-5-2002 the petitioner and his son Sandeep Trivedi were restrained dispossessing the respondents unlawfully from the suit premises. The R.G.A. having recorded the evidence adduced by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 31-3-2003 held that the petitioner failed to prove her ownership of suit premises. Accordingly, applications seeking eviction of tenants u/s 23-A (b) of the Act have been dismissed. Being aggrieved, these revisions have been preferred.

u/s 23-A of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely :--

(b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the, landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.

An application u/s 23-A of the Act may fail as not maintainable for the reason that the title of the landlord was seriously disputed, by which the jurisdiction of the Authority to continue proceeding and decide the lis was ousted. The Authority in such cases should refuse to try and decide finally the application has been held in Jumma Vs. Birja, , where the title to the suit premises of the landlord was seriously disputed and as such the application u/s 23-A of the Act being, beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Authority, the plaint ought to be returned for filing in the appropriate Civil Court for proof of title and for, eviction on the basis thereof. Maya Trivedi, (P.W. 1) herself has admitted that she has not produced any document to show that she is recorded owner of suit: premises. However, the respondents by filing certified copy of Municipal record tried to demonstrate that housed Nos. 1040, 1039 respectively have been recorded in the name of Kailash Shankar Trivedi and Sectional Stores, P.W.D. Highway. On the basis aforesaid the authority held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie title seeking eviction of tenants u/s 23-A (b) of the Act, accordingly, declined to accept the applications. The order aforesaid passed by the R.C.A. does not suffer from any material irregularity-illegality.

Consequently, affirming the order impugned passed by R.C.A., revisions fail and are dismissed. Parties to bear their cost throughout. Counsel fees as per rules or certificate (whichever is less).