1992 Supreme(MP) 581

M. W. Deo, J.
Shankarlal v. Gajanand
C.R.No.454 of 1991 (I); Decided on 14.9.1992.

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) u S.23.A (b) u alternative accommodation fully explained by landlord -- R. C.A. cannot compel landlord to use residential accommodation for purpose of business -- once bona fide requirement is proved eviction should follow.

        LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 23&d ¼[k½ && Hkw&Lokeh }kjk vkuqdfYid okl&lqfo/kk iw.kZr% Li"Vhd`r && HkkM+k fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh Hkw&Lokeh dks uSokfld LFkku dkjckj ds iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx djus dks foo’k ugha dj ldrk && okLrfod vko‘;drk ,d ckj lkfcr gks tkus ij csn[kyh dh tkuk pkfg,A

       Briefly stated the case of the landlordd`respondent was that having retired as peon from government service, he bona fide wants to start the business of dyeing and printing to which he had no other accommodation of his own in Khargone except the accommodation in possession of the petitioners.

       The applicant denied the aforesaid allegation and contended that the landlord owned his own house and is residing with his family that he did not want to start any business and then even if he wants to start, it can be well managed in the accommodation in possession of the landlord.

       The Rent Controlling Authority on perusal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord owns a house in which he is residing with family but that accommodation was neither sufficient nor suitable for the need of starting business. Consequently the application of the landlord for eviction was allowed.

       Held: The petitioners in the present three petitions have made a common front to say that the need of the landlord is fake. I was taken through the evidence of both sides. The main feature of the evidence is that the landlord has about four to five rooms on the ground floor on an area 15 by 60 with some constructions on the first floor. The landlord deposed that though his three sons are in service at Barwant, Send-hwa and Barwaha, he has yet three another sons of whom two are married and are residing with him As such the landlord has a large family and the residential house will be insufficient as well as unsuitable for starting the business of dyeing and printing of cloth. The evidence of the tenants could not out weigh the afore Said reliable evidence from the side of the landlord. It is not a case of landlord trying to hide the accommodation in his possession. He has made a clean best of everything. He has giving size of his family and has bona fide shown how the accommodation in his possession is both insufficient and unsuitable for the business of dyeing and printing.

       It is well settled that Rent Controlling Authority cannot act as a rationing officer to com-pell the landlord to make use of residential accommodation in his possession for business of dyeing and printing. Once the bona fide of the landlord are established, and the need is proved, the result of eviction should follow. That is, what has been done by the impugned order. Revision dismissed.