Once prima facie requirement is found, it is presumed bona fide unless proven otherwise, and the landlord's judgment of their requirement is given weight.

1. This is a revision by the tenant under Section 23-E of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (briefly, "the Act") against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on the application of Smt. Sarti Bai, widow under Section 23-A of the Act.

2. As per memo of revision, undisputed facts are that the applicant is a tenant of late Sabhag Chandra i.e. husband of the non-applicant, of the suit premises since last 26 years and after death of Sabhag Chandra, the non-applicant is his landlady. The premises was let out for non-residential purpose and is being used as such by the non-applicant. Monthly rent of the suit premises is Rs. 600/-. The non- applicant is a widow and comes in the category of landlord given in Section 23-J of the Act.

3. Case of the landlady is that the accommodation was let out for nonresidential purpose to the tenant by her husband late Sabhag Chand and after his death, entire property has been partitioned between legal representatives and the suit premises fell in her share, also lease deed was executed by Raipur Development Authority in her favour with the consent of her sons, and since then, she is the landlady of tenant. The tenant is in arrears of rent for 20 months. She further pleaded that she has no means of livelihood after the death of her husband, therefore, she requires bona fide the suit premises for business purposes which she will do with the help of her grand-son Ajay Kumar Khemani, son of deceased Dilip Kumar Khemani.

4. Case of the tenant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He is not in arrears of rent as alleged. The suit premises is not bona fidely required by the landlady. She has no experience of business, she is an old aged illiterate lady. She is properly maintained by her sons. Specific nature of business has not been pleaded. The whole story is concocted for the purpose of eviction of the non-applicant from the suit premises. This fact is also denied that the applicant does not have any alternative accommodation to start business.

5. The Rent Controlling Authority after appreciation of documentary and oral evidence adduced by both the parties has held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; she requires it bona fide for her business purpose and passed the order of eviction.

6. During the course of hearing of this revision, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Kingar has argued that exact nature of business which she wants to start has not been shown; she is an old lady; does not have any experience of business, other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for the purpose of business is available with her, she is being well maintained by her sons. She has not examined the grand-son to show her need. The need pleaded is ungenuine. The application has been filed with an ulterior motive to enhance the rate of rent. She wants to sell the house, and, therefore, learned Rent Controlling Authority has fallen in error in passing the order impugned. For this, reliance has been placed by Shri Kingarupon the following case laws:-

i. Gonga Bai Vs. Dhanraj-1.

1. 1990(II)MPWN Note 92

ii. Jernail Singh Vs. Kanhaiyalal-2.

2. AIR 1986 MP 53

iii. Shanti Bai Vs. Namomal Sindh-3.

3. 1996 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 113

iv. Ashok Kumar Vs. Kishan Singh-4.

4. 2001 (II) MPJR 269

v. Vikas Kumar Onkar Prasad Gupta Vs. Radhamal Hiramal Sindhi-5.

5. 1998(2)MPLR 139

7. Per contra, Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel for the landlady would submit that the eviction order passed by the R. C.A. is based on cogent and clinching evidence, does not call for interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In his support, he has cited the following case laws :-

i. Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. Smt. Pushpalata Paruthi-6.

6. 2002(1) CGLJ 10

ii. Gopaldas Vs. Kasturi Devi Begani-7.

7. 2002(1)CGLJ 86

iii. Smt. Devi Bai and another Vs. Smt. Rambai-8.

8. 2002(2)CGLJ268

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the