Shyam Khatri vs Smt. Kiran Namdeo
2022 Latest Caselaw 3916 MP

                                   1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                               BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                        ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2022

                    CIVIL REVISION No. 136 of 2022

        Between:-
        SHYAM KHATRI S/O SHRI KISHAN LAL KHATRI ,
        AGED    ABOUT     58   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        SHOPKEEPER R/O M-12B, VAISHALI NAGAR,
        DAMOH, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT DAMOH (M.P.)
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI N.S. RUPRAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER )

        AND

        SMT. KIRAN NAMDEO W/O LATE NIRAJ NAMDEO
        OCCUPATION: NIL R/O NAYA BAZAR, NO 02 NIDHI
        COMPLEX, BUNDA BAHU MANDIR, TAHSIL AND
        DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENT
        (BY SHRI A.K. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT )

     This revision has come up for hearing on this day and the court
passed the following:
                                   ORDER

This revision petition under Section 23E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Damoh/Rent Controlling Authority in case No.Appeal 098/B- 121/2021-22, whereby the application filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Section 23-A(b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been allowed and Tahsildar Damoh has been directed to get the premises vacated from the petitioner and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent.

Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") against the petitioner contending bonafide need of herself and her daughters. Vide notice dated 18.09.2020 the tenancy was

terminated and the petitioner was asked to hand over the vacant possession. The Authority formed an opinion that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and the suit premises is bonafidely required for the business of respondent's daughter.

Shri Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the order of the Authority is without jurisdiction. It is urged that there is no pleading of any family partition, sale deed, or gift deed or any other such document to demonstrate as to how the respondent became the landlord of the said shop No.1. It is further urged that SDO (R) has shown no consideration to the fact that a heavy amount of Rs.4,70,000/- of the petitioner is lying with the landlord and without adjudicating rights accruing therefrom, eviction cannot be ordered because the said shop No.1 is the front shop without which the entire business of the petitioner would collapse. Hence, no decree for eviction on the ground of bonafide need could have been passed against the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ahliwalia and Others Vs. Bishan Chand Maheshwari and another) (2017) 3 SCC 189 wherein it has been held that leave to defend ought not to be refused if Rent Controller finds that tenant has pleaded a triable case.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Rent Controlling Authority has rightly relied upon the judgment given by the High Court in the case of Bhanwarlal Vs. T.N. Saxena, reported in 1993(1) MPWN 86 page 128 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the Authority after considering the facts of the case and on the basis of admission of the petitioner has recorded a finding in favour of the respondent regarding bonafide need and has allowed the application. The reasoning given by the Authority is also

based on proper appreciation of facts and the law. I find much force on the case cited by the learned Rent Controlling Authority.

The land lady and owner of the suit property has all rights to start her new business at the premise of her ownership, once she established her bona fide need. Hence, no exception can be taken thereto. No illegality is committed by the Rent Controlling Authority while allowing the application.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the

view that the Rent Controlling Authority has applied correct Principle of law while allowing the application thereby not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

Accordingly this civil revision sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE Vin**

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VINOD SHARMA Date: 2022.03.25 11:03:54 IST