JUDGMENT : 

This revision is directed by the applicant/tenant under section 23-E of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") being aggrieved by the order dated 23-1-2006 passed in Case No. RCA 4/A-90/2003-2004 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Tikamgarh allowing the application of the respondent filed under section 23-A(b) of the Act for eviction of the applicant from the shop described in such application situated in House No. 12 of Ward No. 10, at Tikamgarh.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent herein filed aforesaid application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Tikamgarh under section 23-A(b) of the Act contending that the applicant herein being his tenant is in occupation of one shop described in the application situated at Tikamgarh @ Rs. 500/- pm for non-residential purpose. As per further averments the respondent being retired government servant from the post of teacher is in bona fide genuine need of such shop to start his business with his sons namely Arvind and Sanjay, for which they do not possess any other suitable accommodation of their own in the township of Tikamgarh. The disputed shop is more suitable and convenient for them. With respect of the alleged business the respondent has sufficient fund and means. In spite giving the notice dated 4-6-2003 to the applicant for vacating the shop, the same has not been complied with by vacating the premises. With these pleadings the aforesaid application for eviction was filed. In pendency of the case by amendment it is pleaded that his son Sanjay has vacated the tenanted shop in which he was running his business and other son Arvind has got assignment of a contract teacher in the State Government for three years but still the alleged need is subsisting as the Arvind after three years on completing his aforesaid assignment on vacating the premises shall start the business.

3. In reply of the applicant, it is stated that disputed shop was taken long before 45-46 years by his father on tenancy @ Rs. 61- pm., the same has been gradually increased up to Rs. 400/- pm and not Rs. 500/- pm. The respondent running his business in his own shop while his son Sanjay is running his clothes business for selling the same by visiting the villages through car. The available alternate vacant shops lying with the respondent have not been disclosed by way of pleadings in the application. Subsequently by amendment it is also pleaded that on account of heavy competition in the market said Sanjay after closing his cloth's shop of Tikamgarh started such business in the rural areas by roaming in different villages through his vehicle. It is also stated that in pendency of the petition some vacant shop lying with the respondent is also let out by him to some person on tenancy. In spite it the respondent is still in possession of some vacant shops of his own, with these pleadings the alleged need of the respondent regarding disputed shop is denied and prayer for dismissal of the application is made.

4. In view of the pleadings after framing the issues, the evidence was recorded, on appreciation of the same by holding the tenancy @ Rs. 400/- pm by allowing the respondent's application the Rent Controlling Authority passed the impugned eviction order against the applicant. On which the applicant has come to this Court.

5. Shri Raavish Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pranay Verma learned counsel of the applicant by referring the pleadings, evidence, available documents and the impugned order said the respondent is not covered under the definition of the specified landlord defined under section 23-J(i) of the Act, hence his application under section 23-A(b) could not be entertained by the Rent Controlling Authority. In continuation he said that according to the language of section 23-J(i) of the Act only such retired government servant could be deemed to be specified landlord who actually while remaining in such service indu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document