The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-payment of rent and a pending ownership dispute can be valid grounds for eviction under the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

1. Applicant/tenant has filed the present revision under section 23E of the M.P Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1961') against the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by Rent Controlling Authority (RCA), Badwani in eviction case No. 0003/A-90(7)/2019-20.

2. Respondent filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent under section 23-A of the Act of 1961 on 20.09.2019 against the applicant. According to the respondents, she is the owner, occupier and title holder of shop No. 2, 3 & 4 situated at the bus stand, Badwani (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit shops'), which were given to the applicant on the terms of the agreement dated 01.09.2019 at the total rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month payable from the dates 1 to 5 per month. The applicant paid the rent regularly for 3 months but from January 2019, he has stopped paying the rent. He is causing a nuisance in her restaurant upon demanding the rent. When the respondent despite repeatedly demanded has failed to pay the rent, therefore, notice dated 23.05.2019 was given to him calling upon him to pay the rent and when he did not pay the rent the cause of action arose for filing the suit. The respondents filed the suit on bonafide need of her two sons who were in need to start business in the city.

3. The Rent Controlling Authority issued the notice to the present applicant. The applicant appeared on 22.10.2019 through his counsel. On 30.10.2019 the counsel for the applicant was provided all the documents and he sought time to file the reply. After repeated adjournments, he filed the reply on 30.11.2019. One Ajay Singh s/o Manohar Singh filed an objection in the proceeding before the RCA on 07.10.2019 about the maintainability of the present proceeding. The respondent filed an application under section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 on 28.01.2020. The objection taken by Ajay Singh about intervention in the pending suit was considered and rejected on 17.02.2020 and the case was fixed for argument on the application under section 13(6). Since the applicant did not deposit the arrears of rent, therefore, vide order dated 29.02.2020 he was proceeded ex-parte and the case was fixed for respondent's evidence. On 16.03.2020 again the present applicant submitted an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. The learned authority has directed him to deposit the rent. In support of the case, the respondent examined herself as PW/1, Akash Thakur as PW/2 and Azhar Hussain as PW/3 and applicant did not give any evidence

4. After appreciating the evidence that came on record, learned RCA has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent by directing the applicant to vacate the possession of the suit shop within 2 months, hence the present revision before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The applicant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2020 on the ground that the respondent is not the owner of the suit shop. A title dispute is going on between the respondent and, the first wife of Manohar Singh Thakur i.e. Smt. Sumanbai before IIIrd ADJ, Badwani. In the said suit vide order dated 19.08.2019 an injunction has been granted in respect of all the suit properties left by late Manohar Singh Thakur in which the said suit shops are also there. The Will in favour of the respondent is also under challenge in the said suit, therefore, until and unless the issue of ownership is decided in the pending suit the present suit for eviction is not maintainable at the instance of the respondent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that she does not fall under the special category of the landlord under 23-J of the Act of 1961 because she is not a widow of the actual owner of the suit shop i.e. Manohar Singh Thakur. During the lifetime of the first wife Smt. Sumanbai, Manoharsingh Thakur was not legally entitled to perform a second marriage with the respondent, therefore, she ca