The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'landlord' under Section 23-J and the evidentiary requirements for establishing the landlord-tenant relationship.

A.K. Mishra, J.

1. These two revisions have come up arising out of the order dated 12-3-1999 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior in Case No. 13/96. Civil Revision No. 516/1999 has been filed by the defendant/tenant; Mohan Krishna Dwivedi challenging the order of his eviction whereas in Civil Revision No. 665/1999 part of the order not directing the defendant to deposit the rent pendents lite has been assailed.

2. The respondent-Bhau Sahib Argade, retired employee of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'MPEB') applied for vacation of the suit accommodation in possession of Mohan Krishna Dwivedi on the ground of genuine requirement for residence for himself and his family alleging that he was not possessed of any alternative accommodation in Municipal limits of Gwalior and was residing at Bhopal for want of accommodation that too in a tenanted accommodation and wanted to shift to Gwalior. Hence, application under Section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority (for short 'RCA').

3. In the reply defendant contended that he was not the tenant of Bhau Sahib Argade. Thus not only the tenancy was denied requirement was also disputed. Rent Controller has found that it is established that Mohan Krishna Dwivedi is the tenant of Bhau Sahib Argade the applicant and applicant required the suit accommodation for the purpose of residence and there was no other alternative accommodation suitable for residence in possession of the plaintiff.

4. In the present revision, learned counsel for the tenant Shri M.M. Kaushik has urged that MPEB cannot be said to be a company as defined in Section 23-J (ii). Landlord of the category specified in Section 23-J can only file an application. His further submission is that it is not satisfactorily established that the applicant was an employee of MPEB. It is his further submission that the plaintiff has stated that there are three rooms which are vacant and their un-suitability has not been pleaded in the application though at the stage of evidence the plaintiff has shown them to be in dilapidated condition. However, it was incumbent upon the applicant to have pleaded so. His further submission is that the plaintiff has admitted existence of 25 rooms and has failed to explain as to non- availability of them. Hence, it is the case where the applicant be non-suited. His further submission is that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established and also that the RCA had not adverted to the evidence adduced by the defendant. Hence, the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be set- aside.

5. Learned counsel for the landlord Shri N.K. Gupta has submitted that it is a case where the plaintiff is residing in Bhopal in tenanted accommodation. There is rent note Ex. P-4 and receipts of rent Exs. P-5 to P-9 evidencing monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. Thus, there is overwhelming evidence on record to support the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is further submitted the other tenants have deposed to support the case of the plaintiff and by the evidence the requirement for residence is made out and no interference in revision is called for. Further submission is that even if the deposition of the defendant is taken into consideration position does not alter. Even a suggestion in the cross-examination of applicant was made which has been accepted by the landlord that rent has been paid for the period January, 1986 to January, 1989. Counsel's submission is that putting such suggestion amounts to suggesting the case of landlord-tenant's relationship. His further submission that wife of the plaintiff whose signature also occurs on certain receipts has not been examined. Hence, an adverse inference be drawn against the petitioner tenant.

6. The first question is with respect to the maintainability of the application. This question came up for consideration before this Court whether the definition of 'landlord' as contemplated under Se