1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2006, passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority in Case No.1-A/90(2) year 2003-2004 whereby the application filed under section 23A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short the Act of 1961) filed on behalf of landlord-plaintiffs has been decreed, defendant-applicant has come up in this revision under section 23E of the Act of 1961.

2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Suffice it to say that on the relationship of landlord and tenant, the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the present applicant.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit accommodation is bonafidely required by them for the residence of the family members. In para 5 of the eviction application, it has been specifically pleaded that plaintiff No.1 is having four adult sons and for their residence, there is no reasonable suitable residential accommodation in the township of Hoshangabad.

4. The defendant-applicant after leave to defend was granted to him filed written statement and denied the averments of bona fide need. The case of defendant-applicant is that by executing a document of agreement of sale on 28.2.2001, the suit house in which she is residing has been agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs and hence she is not a tenant, but under section 53E of the Transfer of Property Act she is possessing the suit property. An application under section 10 read with section 151 CPC was submitted by the tenant before the Rent Controlling Authority stating therein that the execution application be stayed because the defendant has filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the Court of First Civil Judge Class I, Hoshangabad, which has been registered as Civil Suit 37-A/04 and the same has been filed earlier to the filing of the eviction application. The suit for specific performance of contract was filed on 15.5.2003 while the eviction application has been filed later on 23.9.2003 and, therefore, the eviction decree is bad in law.

5. The Rent Controlling Authority after recording the evidence of the parties passed the eviction decree.

6. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the tenant-applicant.

7. The contention of Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant is that looking to the pleadings and the evidence which has been adduced by the plaintiffs, the alleged bona fide need of family members is not proved. The next contention of learned counsel is that despite there is pleading in the written statement that plaintiffs have entered into an agreement with defendant to sell the suit house in which she residing as tenant and thereafter upon filing application under section 10 CPC praying to stay the eviction application till the decision of the suit of specific performance, the same has been rejected by learned Rent Controlling Authority in contravention to the law. Thus, it has been prayed that by allowing this revision application, the impugned order be set aside and the eviction application filed on behalf of respondents be dismissed.

8. On the other hand, Shri Kunal Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order and has contended that cogent reasons have been assigned by learned Rent Controlling Authority in decreeing the eviction application and, therefore, no interference is needed and hence prayed that this revision application be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision application deserves to the dismissed.

10. On bare perusal of the pleadings of plaintiffs in regard to bona fide need, this Court finds that in specific words, the plaintiffs have pleaded in para 5 of the application that the suit house is bonafidely required by them. Further it has been pleaded that first applicant namely, Mst. Sikka Begum (respondent No.1 here in this revision) is having four adult sons and for their residence,