JUDGMENT

D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) IN this appeal filed by the tenant Govind Das Bansal - (legal representative of the original tenant) the judgment rendered by the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in civil revision no. 814 of 1997 is under challenge. In the said judgment, the High Court set aside the order passed by the rent control authority dismissing the application filed by the present respondent and evicting the tenant from the premises in question. The premises in question are non-residential in character. An order for eviction of the tenant was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord and with other consequential directions.

(3) BRIEF facts necessary to appreciate the questions raised, may be stated thus: Bhogi Ram and Nemi Chand were two brothers and jointly owned the four storeyed building of which the suit presimes (two shop rooms) on the ground floor formed a part. By a registered document executed on 30th June, 1989 Bhogi Ram relinquished his interest in the building in favour of his brother Nemi Chand. Nemi Chand by a registered document executed on 25th February, 1989 (exhibit-P.4) settled the suit property (ground floor of the building) in favour of his son Raj Kumar who is the respondent herein. Raj Kumar is undisputedly an insane person. Thereafter, Raj Kumar represented by his father and guardian Nemi Chand filed a petition under section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 seeking the eviction of the appellant from the premises on the ground that it is required for starting a business for sale of utensils for benefit of the owner.

(4) THE appellants refuted the plea of bona fide personal requirement of Raj Kumar and also questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by him alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also questioned the validity of the arrangement/settlement made by Nemi Chand in favour of and for the benefit of his disabled son, Raj Kumar by the registered document dated 25th February, 1989.

(5) THE rent control authority in its order, considered two questions viz., maintainability of the eviction petition filed by Raj Kumar and acceptability of the plea of bona fide requirement and held against the applicant on both the counts. It is evident from the discussions in paragraph 9 of the order that while considering the point whether the applicant has actually a bona fide need for the suit shop for carrying on business for sale of utensils, the authority recorded the finding that there appears to be no justification for doing any business in utensils on behalf of the applicant.

(6) IN paragraph 10 of the order, the conclusion is summed up as follows: "Even if this is presumed that applicant being in the category of section 23-J is eligible to carry on his application lawfully under section 23-A (b), even then the applicant being not the landlord of suit shop and his guardian having available other alternative establishments and houses and object of applicants father being mala fide and bona fide need for applicant being not proved"

(7) THE rent control authority further observed that Nemi Chand, father of Raj Kumar, had other alternative accommodation available for the purpose of opening new business.

(8) IN civil revision filed by the landlord under section 23-E of the Act, the High Court on a fairly detailed discussion of the pleadings, the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and the legal position, came to hold that neither the petition could be dismissed on the ground of maintainability nor could it be held, on the facts and circumstances of the case that the landlord had no bona fide need for the premises in question. The High Court summed up the position in paragraph 20 of the judgement in these words:

"TAKING overall facts and circumstances into consideration especially the fact t