The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 23-J and the presumption of bona fide requirement under Sec. 23-D of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act.

( 1 ) THIS Order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid revisions arising out of the eviction orders passed against the applicants on two separate applications filed on behalf of the respondent-landlords u/s. 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act' ). In the aforesaid revisions some common questions of law are raised on behalf of the petitioners and the petitions are also based on some common facts as such the petitions are being disposed of by common order.

( 2 ) IN both the revisions applicant-tenants have directed revisions u/s. 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act against the order passed by the RCA Indore respectively dated 21-1-1997 in case No. A-90 (7)/57/95 and order dated 3-12-98 in Case No. A-90 (7)/56/95.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicants are the landlords and owners of the house No. 184 situated in M. T. Cloth Market Indore. It is stated that on the ground floor of the said house two shops are situated belonging to the non-applicant-landlords. It is further stated that one of the shop of the ground floor of the suit house is in occupation of the applicant Dhannalal, whereas the other shop adjacent to the first is in occupation of M/s. Tulsidas Sureshchandra, as tenants. It is alleged that the suit shops were given on rent to the respective applicants by the husband of non-applicant No. 1 Krishnadas, father of non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The suit shops were given on rent to the applicants for non residential purpose and the applicants are running their shops in the tenanted premises.

( 4 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 alleging herself to be the owner and the landlord, on the death of Krishnadas, filed two separate applications before the RCA Indore u/s. 21-A of the Act for the eviction of the applicant-tenants, on the ground that the shop in occupation of applicant Dhannalal is required bona fidely for starting business of her second son non-applicant No. 2. Govinda, and the shop in occupation of M/s. Tulsidas Sunderlal is required by the non-applicant No. 1, genuinely for shifting ready-made garment shop run by him in a rented accommodation situated in Gorakund, Indore. It is also stated that the non-applicants/landlord have no other suitable accommodation of their own for their alleged need of establishment of the shops and on this ground the landlord prayed for eviction of the applicants from the disputed shops of the suit house.

( 5 ) BOTH the applicant-tenants have opposed the applications filed by the landlord u/s. 23-A of the Act mainly on the ground that the need as alleged is not bona fide. The non-applicant/landlords have suitable accommodation of their own in the same building in which they can establish their shops of ready-made garments as also selling cloth. It is also stated that on the death of original landlord Krishnadas, his widow and two sons and the daughters also become the owner of the suit house. The petition is filed only by the widow of Krishnadas and his two sons. The daughters are not joined as petitioner, as such the petition deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties.

( 6 ) THE learned RCA, on evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, allowed both the applications of the non-applicants-landlord filed against the respective applicants u/s. 23-A of the Act and directed eviction of the applicants from the respective suit shops in their occupation by the impugned orders as indicated above. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed aforesaid two revisions against the respective orders of eviction passed against them.

( 7 ) I have heard Shri S. D. Sanghi, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Modi for the applicants and Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Bohara for the respondents in Civil Rev. No. 316/97 and Shri B. L. Pavecha, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Mithal for the applicants and Shri P. K. Saxena, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri M. S. Jain, for the respondents in