Judgment

Venkatachala, J.-Learned counsel for parties were heard by us.

2. Whether clause (b) of section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act), which confers a right on the landlord to seek recovery of possession of non-residential accommodation from his tenant or the ground specified thereunder, requires him to plead in his application to be made therefor, that he is also the owner of such accommodation and establish such ownership to succeed in that application being a question of importance arising for our consideration in the Special Leave Petition, the Special Leave to appeal sought for therein is granted.

3. Facts needed to decide the appeal are just a few. The respondent was a tenant of a shop, to b; referred to as the accommodation under one Banarsidas who was his landlord being the owner of that accommodation. The respondent sent a notice on 23rd September, 1985 to Banarsidas calling upon him to effect certain repairs in respect of the accommodation. But. Banarsidas gave a reply to that notice telling the respondent that the appellant, his widowed daughter-in-law has since became the owner of that accommodation, she was his landlord, and as her tenant thereof, it was for him to seek the relief he wanted as regards accommodation from her.

4. However, as notice had been issued by the appellant to the respondent in the meantime, calling upon him to put her in possession of the accommodation on the ground that it was required bona fide, for starting of a business by her sons, that that notice of the appellant was replied to by the respondent by issuance of a counter notice, Ex. P-4, which read thus :

"Your notice has been received and your notice is wrong and mala fide. I had given notice on 23-9-1985 to your father-in-law for repair of your shop and he gave the reply on 3-10-85 that you are the owner of the shop. I had to give notice to you but you already gave notice to me and the same is given for peshbandi and the shop needs repair and same cannot be used fully without being repaired. Therefore, the notice is given that you should do necessary repair in the shop within 15 days of receipt of the notice, so that the shop may be utilised fully, otherwise necessary legal action shall be taken in the competent court and you shall be liable for all cost."

5. Since the respondents demand made to the appellant in the said counter notice failed to evoke the required response, he filed a suit. Case No. 2/86-A/Civil in the Civil Court at Bhind seeking a decree against the appellant for payment of compensation on account of non repair of the accommodation. The plaint filed in that suit on 23rd December, 1985 is Ex. P-5. The claim in that plaint, proceeded on premise that the appellant, who was arrayed as defendant therein, was the owner of the accommodation by stating thus :

"At present defendant has become its owner."

6. Another statement in the plaint was to the effect that the respondent had sent rents to the appellant by money-orders.

7. However, during the pendency of the said suit, the appellant submitted an application under section 23A(b) of the Act in the Court of Bhind Sub-Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, for short the Rent Controller, which was registered as Misc. No. 65/86-87/A-90. By that application, the appellant sought recovery of possession of the accommodation from the respondent on the ground that the accommodation was required bona fide for starting of a business by her sons. But the grant of that application was resisted by the respondent, denying both the appellants bona fide requirement of the accommodation for starting of business by her sons and her ownership of the accommodation. The Rent Controller who recorded the evidence adduced by parties, on consideration of such evidence allowed the appellants application by his order dated 1st June, 1990 As becomes clear from that order, the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller were that the appellant required the