The landlord is presumed to have a bonafide requirement under Section 23-D(III) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, and the burden of proof is on the tenant to prove otherwise.

Fakhruddin, J.

1. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 21-11-2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Dhamtary in case No. 12-A/90(8) of 98-99 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 23(B) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for ejectment has been allowed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non- applicant filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority claiming that she being widow comes under Special Category of the landlords under Section 23-J (III) of the Act. The applicant Vinod Jain is tenant and is carrying on the business of hotel in the premises. The portion is a required by the landlady for bonafide need for carrying on her own business. The tenant filed reply and submitted that he is tenant on monthly rent in the disputed premises since last 31 years. There is no bonafide need of the landlady to start her own business but it is a pretext. In fact she wants to sell the disputed premises. Therefore it was prayed that the application of the applicant for eviction be rejected.

3. The landlady examined A.W. Smt. Pushpalata Paruthi, A.W. Subhash Chandra, A.W. Vinod Khandelwal. The tenant examined N.A.W. Vinod Jain, N.A.W. Jagat Singh, N.A.W. Ramchandra, N.A.W. Champalal and N.A.W. Anand Prakash Dixit.

4. Respondent A.W. Pushpalata Paruthi in her statement stated that the disputed premises was given to tenant Vinod Jain by her mother. In other portion of the premises, she and her son is residing. From the beginning Vinod Jain is paying the electricity bills. Since 1993, she is making request to Vinod Jain to vacate the premises, but possession is not given to her. She further stated that she wants to start her own business. Therefore, she has filed the application for eviction because the portion is required by her for bonafide need for carrying on her own business.

5. A.W. Subhash also stated that Vinod Jain is tenant in the disputed premises since last 20 years at monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. He further stated that the landlady wants to start her own business in the disputed portion. He also stated that the landlady has no other house or shop in Dhamtari town, where she can start her business and she is in need of a shop.

6. A.W. Vinod Khandelwal in his statement has also stated that the landlady resides in back portion of the Quality Hotel. The landlady is in need to start her own business. She has no house other than the disputed premises.

7. N.A.W. Vinod Jain in his statement stated that he took the disputed premises on rent in the year 1966. He further stated that the landlady is an old lady aged about 64 years and is unfit. She does not want to start business. Even she has not yet decided as to what business she wants to do. He further stated that she wants to get the house vacated to sell the same.

8. N.A.W. Ramchandra and Champalal in their statements have stated that Vinod Jain is carrying on business of hotel.

9. The Rent Controlling Authority after considering the entire facts and circumstances and material available on record and after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses found that the need is bonafide and directed eviction of the tenant. The tenant has preferred this revision against the aforesaid order dated 21-11-2000.

10. During the pendency of the case, stay was granted by this Court vide order dated 13-12-2000. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed an application for vacating stay on the ground that the applicant has sublet the accommodation and is not in possession. Notices were issued. This Court passed an order on 09-08-2001 requiring the parties and one Prakash Badhwani to which the house is alleged to have been sublated, to remain present before this Court on 17-08-2001. They were examined by this Court on 09-08- 2001 and opportunities were also given to the counsels to cross- examination. Their statements have been recorded. Prakash Badhwani in his statement before this Court has stated that he remained in