A co-owner of a property is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner and the absence of other co-owners will not disentitle a co-owner from maintaining an action for eviction when the other co-owners do not object to the same.

S.P. Khare, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the order dated 29-9-1997 in case No. A-90 (7)430/89 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, directing the non-applicant to put the applicant in possession of the suit accommodation.

2. Mehmooda Khanam is a widow. She is covered by the definition of landlord given in Section 23-J of the Act. The petitioner is tenant in a portion of the house No. 50, Nayapura, Indore. It had been let out to him by the applicant's father-in- law Mohammed Bashir in the year 1952. After his death he left behind three sons. One of them was Abdul Aziz. He was husband of the applicant. He has also died. His two brothers are alive.

3. The applicant submitted an application under Section 23-A of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority. That is a special provision for eviction of tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. According to the applicant the suit accommodation is required by her bonafide for occupation as residence for herself and for her family members. She has two sons and two daughters. She has no other house at Indore. Her one son is employed in defence services and he is posted at New Delhi. She is at the moment living with him in a Government quarter. This house has been gifted to her by the two brothers of her husband. She is in occupation of one room of this house in which the moveables belonging to her mother-in-law are kept.

4. The case of the non-applicant is that the alleged need of the applicant is a mere pretence to get the house vacated. She is not interested in living at Indore. She wants to sell this house. Her husband during his life-time had written the letter dated 21-11-1986 (Ex. D-1) to him to help him to get this house sold so that he may purchase a house in New Delhi. There has been no gift of the house to the applicant by the brothers of her husband and therefore, in their absence the present application is not maintainable.

5. After recording the evidence of both the sides the Rent Controlling Authority by the impugned order has upheld the plea of the applicant that she requires the suit accommodation bonafide for her residence and for her family members and she has no other house of her own at Indore. It has also been held that in view of the hibanama executed by the two brothers of her husband she alone is owner of the house.

6. In this revision it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Rent Controlling Authority are perverse. It has been urged that an objective appraisal of the evidence on record shows that the applicant does not intend to occupy the house in dispute for her residence. It is pointed out that her husband was a director in All India Radio and her one son is Wing Commander in defence services and therefore her status is such that she would not live in this house. It is said that the case set up by her is highly improbable. On the other hand it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that she has established her felt need for the suit accommodation and as she has no other house of her own the impugned order is unassailable in this revision.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Rent Controlling Authority cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a widow and she has no other house of her own. She has to live with her son at the place of his posting as she has no other house to live at Indore. The house belonged to her father-in-law and after his death and the death of her husband she has to live there. There is nothing unreasonable in the predilection shown by her to live in this house at the fag end of her life. Her husband wrote the letter to the non-applicant during his life-time expressing a desire to sell this house and settle at New Delhi but before he could accompli