Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : K. N. Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Pophli
For the Respondent : N. K. Gupta, S. D. Singh

ORDER/JUDGMENT : – Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Ayushi Pophli, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri N. K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision under section 23-E of the MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT has been filed against the order dated 23-7-2021 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna (M. P.) in Case No. 2A-90/2016-17, whereby the eviction application filed by the respondent (applicant) has been allowed and the petitioner (non-applicant) has been directed to hand over the possession of rented shop to the respondent/applicant.

3. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the respondent/applicant filed an application under section 23-A(b) of the MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna (M. P.) seeking eviction of the shop described in Para No. 1 of the application which was let out to the non-applicant by rent note dated 7-2-1986 for her bona fide requirement to start business of ladies garments. Non-applicant in his reply denied the landlord tenant relationship between the parties and pleaded that the applicant is not landlord of the shop. Pushpendra Kumar Jain son of the applicant is landlord who executed the rent note and received the rent regularly. The applicant is an old lady who is not capable of doing any business. Her requirement is not bona fide. Otherwise also, two shops adjacent to the disputed shop are lying vacant which are equally suitable for the proposed business. After recording of the evidence of both the sides learned Rent Controlling Authority allowed the application and passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved the same, this petition has been filed by the non-applicant/tenant.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

5. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Ayushi Pophli, for the applicant submits that it is well settled legal position that eviction order under the Act can not be passed if the landlord tenant relationship is not established between the parties. In this case, the applicant has not let out the shop to the non-applicant. It is her son-Pushpendra Kumar Jain who let out the shop to the non-applicant. He has not only executed the rent note but also regularly receiving the rent from the non-applicant. He filed a suit for eviction for shop adjacent to the disputed shop in the capacity of landlord of whole building. The applicant has stated that she is owner of the property on the basis of a Will executed in her favour by her husband but no such Will has been produced in evidence. On the other hand, non-applicant has produced ample documentary evidence in the form of public documents which clearly indicates that the applicant is not the landlord of disputed shop and this application has been filed in mala fide manner by misusing special provision of the Act. It is also well established from the evidence of the applicant herself that in this very house two other shops are lying vacant for use of the applicant and her family. One other adjacent shop was also got vacated from the other tenant which has been sold by the son of the applicant. Learned Rent Controlling Authority has passed the impugned order in arbitrary manner without application of mind which deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He has placed reliance upon the following judgments : –

1. Dhania Bai vs. Ramkhilawan , 1982 MPWN 472 , 2. L