The concept of ownership in the context of eviction suits should be understood in the context of the law, and an admission is the best evidence.

Alok Aradhe, J.

In this Revision under Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the applicant has assailed the validity of order dated 19/01/2004 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur. In order to appreciate the applicant's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention which are stated infra.

2. The applicant filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the non-applicant. The claim in the application inter alia was based on the ground that accommodation in question, which is non-residential in nature, was let out to the non-applicant under an agreement dated 28/01/1992 by Late Sardar Kulwant Singh, who is husband of the applicant. It was further pleaded that on 06/04/1998 the applicant's husband expired. Thereafter, the non-applicant started paying rent to the applicant and thus attorned to the ownership of the applicant. The eviction of the non-applicant from the accommodation in question was sought inter alia on the ground that applicant needs the accommodation bona fide for her son namely Gurjinder Singh who wants to open an ice cream parlour in the premises in question. The non-applicant filed an application under Section 23-C of the Act and was granted the leave to defend. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed the written statement and the Rent Controlling Authority recorded the evidence of the parties and by an order dated 19/01/2004 dismissed the application filed by the applicant inter alia on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove that she is the owner of the premises in question and the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands as she has failed to disclose the alternative vacant accommodation in her possession. During the pendency of this revision, by an order dated 2.12.2004 passed by this Court, the defence of the non-applicant against eviction was struck out. On a reference being made by learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.11.2006, a Division Bench of this Court answered the reference by stating that after granting leave to defend the Rent Controlling Authority is not required to grant any opportunity to file the written statement.

3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant while inviting the attention of this Court to order dated 02/12/2004 passed by a Bench of this Court submitted that defence of the non-applicant to the proceeding for eviction has already been struck out. It is submitted that the non-applicant has implicitly admitted the title of the applicant in respect of the suit accommodation in the application for leave to defend and in view of Section 23-D(3) of the Act, the statutory presumption is attached to the bona fide need of the applicant. It is also submitted that non-applicant has failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal to dislodge the statutory presumption in respect of the bona fide need. It is also submitted that since the applicant is a widow, therefore, she belongs to category specified in Section 23-J of the Act and was competent to file the application for eviction under Chapter III-A of the Act and all other co-owners need not have joined her in the proceeding. In support of aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on decisions in the case of Onkar Prasad Patel v. Brijlal, 1965 MPLJ N63, Smt. Krishnabai v. Smt. Laxmibai, 1970 MPLJ 674, Harbans Singh v. Smt. Margrat G. Bhingardive, 1990 MPLJ 112, Girish Kumar Shrivastava v. Punjab National Bank, Satna, 2003 (2) MPLJ 481 and Pandharinath s/o Ramchandra Rao v. Rukminibai wd/o Chotelal and other, 2006(1) MPLJ 338. It is urged that the plea that the applicant is not the owner of the accommodation in question, has not been taken in the application under Section 23-C of the Act and there is sufficient material on record to arrive at a finding that the applicant is the owner in respect of the accommodation in question. In support of aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel for the applic