( 1. ) THIS revision petition under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 24-8-1985 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (for short the authority) whereby the petitioners application under Section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the non-applicant from the accommodation in dispute situate at Indore, been dismissed.

( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision petition are these. The petitioner, a widow aged 55 years filed the application under Section 23-A of the Act on 25-10-1983 on the ground that the non-applicant is her tenant in the accommodation in question on a monthly rent and the accommodation is required bona fide for her residence with her relations and that she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of her own in the city of Indore for the purpose.

( 3. ) THE non-applicant was granted leave to contest the application. He contended that he was a co-owner of the accommodation in dispute and was not a tenant. The averment of bona fide requirement was also controverted. ( 4. ) SUBSEQUENTLY the non-applicant remained ex parte.

( 5. ) AFTER ex parte evidence, the learned Authority held that in view of the averment in the written statement, the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and further that she has failed to prove that the family members whom she wants to reside with her dependent on her and, therefore, she is not entitled to an order for eviction of the tenant.

( 6. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the evidence of the petitioner (A. W. 1) and her witness Gopal (A. W. 2) the relationship of landlord and tenant, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, is clearly established. He goes on to contend that the learned Authority has passed the impugned order without advertence to Section 23-A (a) of the Act and the important provision embodied in section 23-D (3) ibid.

( 7. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

( 8. ) THE first contention is quite correct. Now as to the second one. From a perusal of the application under Section 23-A of the Act it appears that the applicant for reasons of her old age wants other members of her family to reside with her so that she may be looked after. According to her evidence she requires the accommodation for the residence of her husbands brother. Under Section 23-A a landlord is entitled to apply for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The ground incorporated in Section 23-A (a) is in these terms :-

" that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. "

The phrase members of family has been defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act in these terms:-

" In this Act unless the context otherwise requires member of the family in case of any person means the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, brother, unmarried sister, parental uncle, parental uncles wife or widow, or brothers son or unmarried daughter living jointly with or any other relation dependent on him. "

Thus out of the relations, the law recognizes the requirement of the specified relations living jointly or dependent relations alone and of no other relations.

( 9. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the application under Section 23-A the requirement of the accommodation is for the applicant herself and not for her relations as such and, therefore, there is no question of their being dependent on the applicant and the learned Authority erred in passing the impugned order basing it also on the que