1. This revision has been filed under section 23-E of the MP Accommodation Control Act against the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, district Gwalior in Case No. 07/05-06/90-7/RENT whereby the application filed by respondent/applicant has been allowed and order of eviction has been passed against petitioner/non-applicant under section 23A of the MP Accommodation Control Act (in short referred to as Accommodation Control Act).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/applicant has filed an application for eviction under section 23A of the MP Accommodation Control Act against petitioner/non-applicant alleging that in the shop bearing No. 102, 103 situated at Agrasen Complex, Darjioli, Lashkar, Gwalior owned by respondent/applicant and his daughter Kanchanbai. petitioner/non-applicant is tenant at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The non-applicant earlier became tenant of Smt. Nirmala Devi Gangwani from whom the respondent/applicant and her daughter Kanchanbai purchased Both the shops by sale deed dated 25.2.2005. The tenant has not paid any rent inspite of notice of attornment given by the new landlord and in his reply to the notice, he has wrongly mentioned that he is tenant at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. The applicant Hemibai has filed the application on the ground of being widow under section 23-J of the MP Accommodation Control Act as her husband has died on 27/05/06. The applicant has filed an application for eviction on the ground that she need the suit premises bonafidely for business of her son Ashok Nandwani for which purpose she has no other accommodation in the Municipal area of Gwalior, MP.

3. Petitioner/non-applicant in his reply admitted that he is tenant of the suit premises since the time of Nirmaladevi Gangwani and he has no intimation regarding the suit property being sold by Nirmaladevi to the applicant. Since he has received notice from the applicant he has sent rent of Rs. 360/- from March 2005 to June 2005 under protest which has been received by the applicant. He has denied the fact that suit premises is banafidely needed for business to her son and it is further alleged that in the godown, no business can be established. It has further alleged that application has been filed with an intention to increase the rent. Earlier, Nirmaladevi has also filed suit for eviction and by compromising the matter outside the Court she has received one lac and got the application dismissed in non-prosecution. By receiving rent of Rs. 45/- per godown, the sale deed has been executed by Suresh Chand Wadhwani as power of attorney holder and has been purchased by Ashok Kumar in the name of respondent/applicant. Nirmaladevi has received one lac rupees as security which has not been returned or adjusted in the rent. Co-owner Kanchandevi has not been made party in the application.

4. Learned Rent Controlling Authority has allowed the application by holding that petitioner is tenant of respondent at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month and suit premises is requires bonafidely for business of readymade garment by son of the petitioner and petitioner landlord falls in the category mentioned in section 23-J of the MP Accommodation Control Act.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner has filed this revision petition on the ground that the Rent Controlling Authority has granted decree of arrears of rent against the petitioner for which he has no jurisdiction. Petitioner did not accept the title of Smt. Hemibai Nandwani because her son Ashok Nandwani has executed the sale deed in favour of his mother and no specific issue regarding this pleading has been framed by the trial Court. The applicant Hemibai Nandwani has admitted in cross examination that her son Ashok Nandwani purchased the suit premises and he paid the consideration for the same. It is further admitted that to purchase suit premises herself and Ashok Nandwani obtained the loan from the bank.

6. The main ques