( 1. ) THIS revision application has been directed by the applicant/ landlord against the impugned order dated 7/8/2002 passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, dismissing his application for eviction filed under Section 23-A (b) of Chapter III-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act ).

( 2. ) THE applicant demonstrating himself to be the landlord of the suit shop as envisaged under Section 23-J (iv) of the Act in which the respondents/tenants at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month are carrying on the business of electrical goods. According to the landlord, the tenant is in occupation of the suit shop at the time when it was purchased by the applicant on 3/7/1978 and the tenancy is oral. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to the landlord, the suit shop is required bona fidely by him for doing the business of steel and crockery and at present he is carrying his business in a rented shop in Sadar Bazar and is paying rent to the Cantonment Board, Jabalpur. The landlord has two grown up sons and he wants to settle them and the suit shop which is in occupation of respondents, is sufficient for doing the business of steel and crockery. In the application for eviction it has been pleaded that physically handicapped certificate of the Medical Board is being filed along with the application. The suit shop is required bona fidely by the applicant to start the business of steel and crockery and the landlord has no reasonably suitable vacant accommodation of his own in the city of Jabalpur. On these premised pleadings, it has been prayed by the applicant/landlord that order of eviction of the suit shop be passed.

( 4. ) THE tenant after obtaining leave to defend as envisaged under Section 23-C of the Act filed written statement and pleaded that the applicant is not the owner of the suit shop and since he is not the owner of the suit shop which is paramount consideration in order to pass an order of eviction under Section 23-A (b) of the Act, therefore, the application filed by the landlord be dismissed. In the written statement, specifically it has been denied that applicant is the owner of the suit shop. The factum of purchasing the suit shop vide registered sale deed dated 3/7/1978 has also been denied. According to the tenants, the allegation of landlord that the sale deed was executed in his favour by Amir Bhai, Smt. Tara Bi, Razia bi and Hatim Bhai, but, Smt. Razia Bi and Gul Mali were not the resident of Jabalpur City on the date when the sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant. According to the tenant sale deed does not show as to under which power of attorney Ameer malik could act on behalf of Smt. Razia Bi and Hatim Bhai. The execution of power of attorney by Smt. Razia Bi and Hatim Bhai in favour of Ameer Malik authorising him to alienate the property in favour of tenant, has been specifically denied. An alternative plea has also been raised that if it is assumed that power of attorney was executed in favour of Ameer Malik, such power of attorney was a forged document because the persons who alleged to have executed power of attorney were not residing at Jabalpur and as per the best information received by the tenant they were also not present in the country itself. On these premised pleadings, it has been pleaded in the written statement that the landlord is not the owner of the suit shop. Further it has been pleaded that sale deed executed on 3rd July, 1978 also does not show that how Ameer malik and Smt. Tara Bi acquired any right, title and interest over the property which was later on alienated to the present applicant/landlord.

( 5. ) IT has also been pleaded in the written statement that the shop in possession of non-applicants was divided into two portions and they were denoted as shop No. J-1 and J-2. The shop right from the beginning, was one shop constructed by late Shri K. K. Minocha and after his death non-applicants have been enjoying physical possession of the same.

( 6. ) FURTHER it