1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna.

2. Briefly narrated facts are that the landlord respondent filed a petition purporting to be under 'Section 23A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter will be referred to as the Act). With the allegation that he was the owner of the house situated in Subhash Colony on Agra Bombay Road, Guna, detailed in para 1 of the petition the defendant was the tenant in the portion marked by the red lines in the map attached with the petition. He was a teacher previously and retired from service on 31.7.93. He wanted to carry on business of Breakfast Centre in the disputed shop in which the present petitioner was the tenant. He had no other vacant shop with him in which he could carry on business. He gave a notice to the present petitioner on 13.9.93 terminating his tenancy and to vacate the shop, but no effect. He also did not pay the rent. Respondent Bhagwandas i.e. the present petitioner moved an application purporting to be under Section 23-C of the said Act for leave to contest. It was allowed. He filed a written statement contesting the claim. He however admitted that he was the tenant in the disputed shop, but claimed that the rent was Rs. 125/- p.m. instead of Rs. 150/- as claimed. He had paid the rent. The respondent i.e. the landlord was the big businessman and had a business of Scooter Motor parts and had also a workshop and garrage in which he and his son carried on business. The petitioner was based on wrong allegation. He had filed a suit with respect to the disputed shop as well as adjoining property for possession in the year 1989, which was compromised. As a result of that compromise, the shop in question was given to him and the remaining workshop was kept by the landlord. The landlord wanted to enhance rent from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 500/-.

3. Both the parties adduced evidence and after considering evidence on record and hearing parties, the learned RCA allowed the petition holding that the requirement of the landlord was bona tide and directed the tenant to vacate the shop and to pay the rent. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been presented.

4. The 1earned counse1 for the petitioner contended that the 1andlord has not been able to prove bona tide requirement. There is nothing on record to show that he actually wanted to carryon business. The landlord had sufficient accommodation with him in which the business of Scooter Motor Parts as well as garrage was being run. On the other hand, it has been contended that in view of the provision of Section 23-D, there is a presumption with respect to bona fide requirement in cases where the petition is moved by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 23-A. He also urged that in revision petition, the detailed examination of evidence is not required. The powers of an appellate Court have not been conferred upon the revising Court. There is findings of fact of the learned Court below and there is nothing to show that it is perverse.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the pleadings go to show that there is no dispute between the parties to the effect that the respondent Ramcharan landlord was a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J. Admittedly, the respondent is covered within the landlord and as such no argument has been raised by either of the parties on this point. Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is no material to show that the need was bona fide inasmuch as the respondent landlord has not been able to show that he will carryon business of Breakfast Centre as claimed. There is a provision contained in Section 23-D of the Act, which provides for procedure to be followed by the RCA under sub-Section (3) of this Section, it has been provided:

"In respect of an application by a landlord it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is pro