The need of a widowed daughter-in-law can be considered as the need of the landlady herself under Section 23-A(b) of the Act, and non-examination of the daughter-in-law does not weaken the landlady's case.

As per Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.:

1. This civil revision under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the tenant questioning the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the impugned order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur.

2. The respondent landlady preferred an application under Section 23A of the Act for the petitioner's eviction from the suit premises situated at Shukrawari Bazar within the municipal corporation area of Raipur bearing House No.290/20. The said non residential premises was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.625/- after executing rent note on 1-6-2004 for the period till 30th May, 2005. According to the landlady, tenancy came to an end on 30th May, 2005, as the tenancy was not extended thereafter. However, in spite of repeated oral requests, the tenant failed to vacate the premises even after informing that the landlady needs the premises for her personal need. The legal notice datcd 2-5-2005 was served on the tenant seeking delivery or vacant possession, however, the tenant did not comply with the request made in the notice. It was stated in the application that the landlady, an old aged widow, needs the premises for the business which will be carried along with her daughter-in-law Smt. Usha Waretwar, widow of late Ashok Waretwar and her grand son and to satisfy the said need, she has no reasonably suitable alternative' accommodation in Raipur town.

3. After seeking leave to defend, the tenant filed his reply, inter alia, pleading that he is in possession of the premises since 1983 and not from June, 2004 as pleaded by the landlady. It was further stated that the landlady wanted to increase the rent from Rs.625/- to Rs.2,000/-, however, on the tenant's refusal. the instant eviction petition has been preferred only to harass him and that prayer for eviction for the need of someone else is not maintainable. In para-11 of the reply, it was stated that the landlady's pleading that she needs the premises to carryon the business along with her daughter-in-law and grand son is denied and that she has an alternative accommodation which is available in the same suit premises. it was also stated that her grandson is in Government service, therefore, the need is not bonafide.

4. To substantiate her prayer for-eviction, the landlady examined herself and her witness Laxman Rao Channawar. On the other hand, the tenant examined him self and his witnesses namely, Mohd. Salim, Budhram Nirmalkar and Chandulal Ambwani. The landlady proved the rent note dated 1-6-2004 as Ex.-P/1, its reply by the tenant as Ex.-P/2 and the legal notice as Ex.-P/ 3.

5. The Rent Controlling Authority had earlier framed the issues and after recording the evidence, has passed the impugned order of eviction, inter alia, holding that the applicant/landlady is entitled to seek eviction as she has proved the need of her daughter-in-law and that to satisfy the said need, she has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Raipur town.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the eviction application under Section 23-A of the Act was not maintainable because the need of daughter-in-law is not covered under Section 23-A(b) of the Act. He would further submit that the present application for eviction has not been filed within one year from the date of death of original landlady, therefore, the eviction petition was not maintainable for the need of daughter-in-law and in any case, the daughter-in-law having not been examined, the need is not proved.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlady/respondent argued that on true constructions of the pleadings made in the eviction application, it would appear that the projected need is for landlady herself and for her daughter-in-law and grandson because in para-11 of the eviction application, it has been pleaded that the landlad