The court emphasized the need for landlords to establish foundational prerequisites for eviction and highlighted the summary nature of proceedings before the RCA.

JUDGMENT :

Sheel Nagu, J.

1. Revisional powers of this Court under section 23E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (for brevity 'the 1961 Act') are invoked to assail the final order of the Rent Controlling Authority dated 26/04/2019 passed in Case No. 01/2015 x 16 x 90/7 allowing an application preferred by the respondent/landlord under section 23A of the 1961 Act on the ground of landlord being retired servant of a Company (NTPC) owned and controlled by Central Government seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide need to run business in respect of shop admeasuring 8 ft. X 29 ft. situated on the ground floor occupied by petitioner as tenant since 01/08/1984 on rent @ Rs. 300/- p.m. subsequently enhanced to Rs. 400/- p.m.

2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

3. Learned senior Advocate along with Shri Sanjeev Jain, Advocate in support of challenge to the impugned order submits that the respondent despite having failed to prove the foundational prerequisites for entitling, an order under Section 23A of the 1961 Act i.e. landlord is the owner of the accommodation and the landlord being a retired servant of a Company (NTPC) owned and controlled by Central Government, the RCA has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing eviction of petitioner tenant.

3.1. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no documentary proof was exhibited and admitted in evidence by the respondent/landlord to establish that he was owner of accommodation in question and that he was retired servant of a Company (NTPC) owned controlled by Central Government entitled to invoke Section 23A (b).

3.2. It is further submitted that the manner in which the Rent Controlling Authority allowed admission of Ex-P/3 identity card of respondent/landlord to prove his retired status is de hors the basic fundamentals of CPC and Evidence Act. Similarly, it is submitted that to establish the factum of respondent/landlord being owner of accommodation in question, Ex.-P/1 and Ex.-P/2, Will and Death Certificate respectively of the mother of respondent were admitted in evidence unlawfully. It is submitted that all the three documents which are shown to be Ex.-P/1, P/2 and P/3 has merely been placed on record by the respondent/landlord without the same being exhibited and admitted in evidence in terms of Order 13 Rule 4 CPC thereby rendering them inadmissible in evidence and therefore, worth discarding. Yet, it is submitted the RCA solely relied upon Ex. P/1, P/2 & P/3 to pass the impugned order.

3.3. It is further submitted that RCA has adopted procedure foreign to CPC, Evidence Act and even to Court of Small Causes.

3.4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that findings recorded by RCA in respect of landlord being owner, the landlord being retired servant of Company/NTPC which is owned and control by Central Government and regarding bonafide need, have been recorded on presumptions and surmises in the absence of any proof and also by wrongly shifting the burden of proof upon the petitioner/tenant to disprove the case of the landlord without the landlord first proving his case.

3.5. It is lastly submitted by petitioner/tenant that application under section 151 of CPC of the petitioner/tenant filed to dissuade the RCA to admit Ex-P/1, Ex- P/2 and Ex-P/3 in evidence was rightly dismissed by order dated 30/03/2019 of the RCA which was never challenged by the respondent/landlord.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/landlord laid great stress on the fact of RCA having failed to extend benefit of deeming clause to respondent/landlord under Section 23C of 1961 Act. In this regard, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that since no leave was obtained from RCA by the petitioner/tenant within expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice of the application under Section 23A of the 1961 Act, the RCA wrongly allowed the petitioner/tenant to con