Under section 23-C of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, once the defense is struck off, the landlord's statements in the eviction application are deemed admitted, and the court is obligated to pass an order of eviction if the statements are sufficient under section 23-D.

ORDER (Through Video Conferencing) : – This Civil Revision under section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (In short “Act, 1961) has been filed against the order dated 28-11-2017 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior in Case No. 23/95-96/90-7 by which an order of eviction has been passed against the applicants.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of present revision in short are that the original respondent (Shyamlal Vyas) filed an application for eviction against the original applicant (Inderchand Jain) from a suit shop situated at Chhaparwala Bridge, Phalka Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior bearing Corporation No. 34/304 on the bona fide requirement of his son, Amitabh for starting the business of Paint and Cement. It is the case of the plaintiff-landlord/respondent that the suit shop was let out by Shantilal to defendant-tenant/applicant, and a rent Note was also executed. The plaintiff-landlord/respondent has become owner of the suit shop by virtue of Will executed by Shantilal and Probate in this regard has been issued. It was his case, that he has retired from Judicial service, and his fourth son, namely Amitabh Vyas is aged about 25 years, and is unemployed, and the suit shop is bona fidely required for opening the business of paint and cement. It was further stated that the plaintiff-landlord/respondent has no other alternative and suitable accommodation.

3. The original defendant/applicant filed an application under section 23-C of Act, 1961 seeking leave to defend. In the application for leave to defend, the defendant/applicant accepted that he was regularly making payment of rent to the plaintiff/respondent, and in fact the plaintiff-landlord wants to enhance the rent and therefore, the application for eviction has been filed on frivolous ground. The statement made by the plaintiff-landlord with regard to the bona fide requirement for non-residential purpose of his son Amitabh was also denied.

4. Accordingly, leave to defend was granted on the grounds mentioned in the application for grant of leave to defend. At the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified that the landlord tenant relationship was admitted by the defendant-tenant/applicant in his application for grant of leave to defend, and no leave was sought by denying the landlord tenant relationship.

5. Thereafter, it appears that the applicant filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, seeking direction to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent to produce his documents of title, claiming that the applicant was inducted as tenant by Shantilal (Grand father of original applicant Shyamlal Vyas). The said application was rejected by R.C.A. by order dated 5-2-1997 and thereafter, written statement was filed on 27-2-1997 and an additional defence by disputing landlord tenant relationship was also taken. It was pleaded that in fact, the owner of the property is Mahalaxmi Temple and Shantilal was appointed as Pujari of the said temple and therefore, the plaintiff-landlord/applicant, namely Shyamlal Vyas is not the owner and the ownership dispute can be decided by the Competent Court of civil jurisdiction.

6. It appears that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the defendant-tenant/applicant filed an application for framing additional issue with regard to the ownership, which was rejected by the trial Court and accordingly C.R. No. 530/1997 was filed. The said Civil Revision was dismissed by this Court by order dated 23-7-1997 by holding that, the defendant is making payment of rent to the plaintiff-landlord/applicant and on some occasions, rent was paid even by money orders, and it has never been disputed by the defendant that the defendant-tenant/applicant/Shyamlal Vyas is not the owner.

7. Thereafter again, the present applicant filed an application seeking extensive amendment in the written statement thereby raising the dispute of ownership. The said application was rejected by R.C.A. by order dated 24-9-1997, against