Smt. Kanta Chandel vs Smt. Indra Dubey
2022 Latest Caselaw 2909 MP

                                            1


                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                          C.R. No. 289/2019
                       ( Smt. Kanta Chandel Vs Smt. Indra Dubey )



Gwalior, Dated : 02-03-2022

      Shri    Ajay Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner-non

applicant.

      Shri G.P. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant.

This revision petition under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation

Control Act (hereinafter shall be referred to as "The Act), has been filed

against the order dated 21/01/2019 passed by the Rent Controlling

Authority, Guna (M.P.) in Case No. 3A-90/2011-12 whereby application

filed by respondent/landlord for eviction of rented premises has been

allowed.

Brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent-applicant

filed an application for eviction under Section 23A of the Act with the

averment that in the house situated near bus stand Aron Shriram Colony

Guna (M.P.), husband of the petitioner-non applicant hired two rooms on

rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. He died on 17/08/2016. The husband

of petitioner/non applicant was forcefully residing in the premises against

whom proceedings of eviction were initiated and after his death, petitioner/

applicant is residing in the premises who is not willing to vacate the same.

Petitioner/non applicant in her reply stated that respondent/applicant has

got sale deed of the disputed premises executed from her father in law.

She is residing in this house since her marriage. She is widow having two

children and she is being harassed by the respondent/applicant.

The learned Rent Controlling Authority, Guna (M.P.) has allowed the

application of the respondent/applicant by the impugned order against

which this petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/non applicant submits that under

Chapter III of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, eviction order can only be

passed when landlord and tenant relationship is established between the

parties. In this case, respondent-applicant herself has come out with the

version that earlier husband of the petitioner/non-applicant was forcefully

residing in the premises and after his death petitioner/non applicant is

residing forcefully. Thus, in the absence of landlord and tenant relationship,

the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Guna is

not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has placed reliance on the decision in

the case of Girdharilal Vs Ku. Munnibai, reported in (1988-II) MPWN

71, Virja Vs Jumma, C.R. Reported in (1989-I) MPWN 155 and Mallu

and others Vs The Commissioner Chambal Division Morena (M.P.) and

others decided on 23/02/2022 in WA No. 14/2021 by Division Bench of

this Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant submits that respondent-

applicant has categorically pleaded that husband of non applicant took the

premises on rent and afterwards he forcefully resided in the premises and

after his death petitioner/non applicant is residing in the premises. Neither

the petitioner/non applicant filed any application for leave to defence as

required under Section 23C of the Act, nor she has filed any documents in

her support. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The revision

petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the

record, this Court finds that respondent/applicant has categorically pleaded

in her application that husband of petitioner\non applicant hired the

premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month. After his death, the

petitioner-non applicant is residing in the rented premises. Thus, it has been

clearly pleaded that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the

parties After death of husband of petitioner/non applicant, nature of said

relationship does not change, particularly when no independent transaction

has taken place between the parties. Respondent-applicant has filed relevant

documents to establish her ownership over the rented premises. On the other

hand, petitioner/non applicant was required to file an application under

Section 23-C of the Act to lead evidence in her defence but no such

application was filed on her behalf. She has stated that rented premises were

sold by her father in law to respondent-applicant but no such documentary

evidence to prove the ownership of her father in law has been produced.

Thus, learned Rent Controlling Authority has considered the matter in

proper perspective and has not committed any illegality in passing the

eviction order in favour of respondent-applicant.

The legal position expounded in the above cited judgment is not

disputed that for eviction under Chapter III of M.P. Accommodation

Control Act, landlord and tenant relationship must be established but as

observed above in this case landlord and tenant relationship is well

established between the parties,therefore, the same do not help the

petitioner.

In view of above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in

the impugned order, resultantly, the instant civil revision is dismissed.

(Satish Kumar Sharma) Judge Prachi

PRACHI MISHRA 2022.03.03 16:55:57 +05'30'