Vinod Kumar vs Bhagwanti Bai

This revision Chapter III-A under Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is preferred by a tenant in occupation of non-residential accommodation; a shop ad-measuring 7 ft. x 12 ft = 84 sq.ft situated at one Rajwada Chowk, Indore on a rent of Rs.705/- per month since the year 1974 against the order of eviction dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Eviction Case No.A/90(7) 19/2007 on the ground of bona fide need.

The landlord and the tenant relationship and occupation of the suit shop since the year 1974 are not in dispute between the parties.

The eviction application was filed on 01.05.2007 by a widow, aged about 64 years seeking the suit shop to start her own business of 'Cutlery and Fancy Goods' as pleaded in para 17-A of the application and deposed in her testimony. After filing of written statement, the trial Court framed five issues and answered all of them in affirmative and in favour of the land lady. Issue Nos. 3 & 4 related to 'bona fide need' and 'non-availability' of alternative suitable accommodation for running business have been dealt with.

Upon critical evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the bona fide need to establish the proposed business and there is no other alternate suitable accommodation available with the land lady duly proved. Accordingly, suit has been decreed.

Shri Sethi, learned senior counsel for the applicant while criticizing the impugned order though made effort inter alia contending that the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) has not exercised the jurisdiction in right perspective while addressing on issues Nos.3 & 4. According to him, the RCA was obliged to ascertain bona fide need of the land lady which it failed to do so. Further, elaborating the submissions, he contends that the land lady in her examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC occupation; of business whereas she has dis-owned the same while deposing in her cross-examination. That apart, the RCA failed to appreciate the fact that the land lady has many more shops though occupied by tenants but, there is nothing on record to suggest as to why she did not file eviction case against the other tenants, therefore findings are perverse.

Per contra, Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel contends that in its revisional jurisdiction under section 23E of the Act, the High Court has limited jurisdiction akin to section 115 CPC to ensure that the eviction order does not suffer from patent jurisdictional error or illegality or irregularity warranting interference.

The Rent Controlling Authority while adjudicating on an application of special category of landlords as defined under section 23J of the Act, under section 23A; a special provision for eviction of a tenant on the ground of 'bona fide requirement' exercises the jurisdiction in a summary manner unlike the civil Court and is required to satisfy itself with the 'bona fide need' of the landlord or persons named in the section and non-availability of other reasonably suitable accommodation.

The respondent/landlady has specifically pleaded and proved her own bona fide requirement and non-availability of other reasonably suitable accommodation. Her testimony has withstood in her cross-examination. The arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant/tenant are devoid of substance and do not warrant interference in the eviction order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The Rent Controlling Authority has recorded impregnable findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and thereafter has passed the eviction order applying correct principle of law.

The respondent/landlady has been fighting legal battle for eviction of the tenant for 'bona fide need' since the year 2007. Now at a distance of more than twelve years, she is entitled to reap the fruits of eviction order.

This Court finds substantial force in the submission advanced by Shri Jain, learned senior counsel.

At this stage, Shri Sethi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, on instructions submits that in case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the eviction order, the applicant's possession may be protected for a period of two years with an undertaking that he shall vacate the suit premise without any resistance.

Shri Jain, learned senior counsel for the respondent objects to the same with the submission that for over twelve years a widow lady is fighting and now she cannot be denied the fruits of decree of eviction order, therefore, no further time be granted to the applicant as the applicant is in occupation of shop since the year 1974 and for last seven years he is enjoying interim protection of this Court.

Heard.

As Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the applicant does not intend to press this application, this Court without entering into merits of rival contentions of the parties but, to meet the ends of justice this revision petition is intended to be disposed of granting one year's time to the applicant to vacate the suit premise on following terms and conditions:

(i) the applicant shall continue to occupy the suit premise for a period of one year expiring on 31.03.2020;

(ii) applicant shall deposit arrears of rent, if any, within four weeks;

(iii) applicant shall deposit rent Rs.705/- per month on every 15th day of every month regularly;

(iv) applicant shall not change or alter the nature of the suit property in any manner;

(v) applicant shall not create third party rights over the suit property.

(vi) applicant shall vacate the suit premise on or before 31.03.2020 without any resistance;

(vii) in case, the applicant avoids or delays handing over the vacating peaceful possession of the suit premise to the land lady; the non-applicant land lady shall be entitled to seek Police help for forcible eviction of the applicant without any further loss of time. The concerned Police Station shall provide the Police security without any delay. The landlady shall also be at liberty to approach this Court for necessary order.

(viii) applicant shall submit an undertaking to the aforesaid effect before the trial Court within four weeks from today.