All the five Civil Revisions are analogously heard and decided

by this common order. In all the revisions the landlord (landlady) is common

but the tenants are different who are in occupation of 5 shops as follows :

(i) CR 285/2018 -Ashok Kumar Agrawal

-Shop no. 6.

4

(ii) CR 290/2018 -Sanjay Kumar Pandey

-Shop no. 7.

(iii) CR 287/2018 -Vasudeo Chawla

-Shop no. 8.

(iv) CR 289/2018 -Brajendra Kumar Chourasiya-Shop no. 11.

(v) CR 288/2018 -Mahesh Ramani

-Shop no. 12.

2.

Aforementioned civil revisions under Section 23-E of the M.P.

Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the MPAC Act’) have been

filed by petitioners/non-applicants/tenants challenging the order of eviction

dtd. 16.04.2018 passed by SDO/RCA, Maihar, Distt. Satna, whereby

respondent/applicant/landlord’s application under Section 23-A(b) of the

MPAC Act filed for bonafide requirement of her son-Siddharth to start

business of hardware/sanitary, has been allowed.

3.

Facts in short are that the application for eviction on the ground of

bonafide requirement of the shop in question, along with other shops, was

filed with the averments that the respondent/applicant is landlord and the

petitioner/non-applicant is her tenant and she being widow is covered under

the definition of landlord of special category. The shop was given on rent by

mother-in-law (Saas) of the respondent/applicant namely Premwati and after

her death the petitioner/non-applicant is paying rent to the

respondent/applicant, treating her to be owner and landlord of the shop(s).

The son of respondent/applicant, after completing his education is

unemployed and requires the rented shop for starting his business. It is stated

in the application that on the ground floor of the building there were several

shops but the respondent/landlord being in need of the money for treatment

of her husband, some shops have been sold and only 8 shops (nos. 2 & 6 to

5

12) are remaining, which are required for the business of son-Siddharth, who

after removing partition wall in between the shop no.6 & 7, shall build a

showroom and other shops shall be used as godowns for keeping the

business’ goods and there is no other alternative accommodation available

with the respondent/applicant in the township. On inter alia allegations the

application was filed.

4.

The petitioner/non-applicant appeared and filed reply admitting himself

to be tenant of the respondent/applicant. In paragraph 1 of the reply, it is

admitted that previously Premwati was owner and landlord of the house

known as Siddharth Complex and after her death the respondent/applicant is

owner and he is making payment of rent to her. However, he alleged that the

applicant/landlord does not require the rented shop for the need of her son

because he wants to do hotel business and for that purpose construction of

first floor is in progress and also contended that the applicant is having

several other alternative accommodations, which are sufficient to satisfy the

need of respondent/applicant’s son. It is also contended that the

respondent/applicant wants to sell the rented shops after getting vacated the

same. On inter alia submissions the application was prayed to be dismissed.

5.

After framing issues and after recording evidence of the parties,

learned RCA vide its impugned order, found that the respondent/applicant is

in need of the rented shop(s) for the requirement of her son and there is no

other alternative accommodation available in the township and allowed the

application(s).

6.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/non-applicant submits that

the property in which the rented shops are situated belongs to the State

6

Government, plot of which was allotted to the landlord vide lease deed,

therefore, in view of provisions contained in section 3 of the MPAC Act, the

provisions of the MPAC Act are not applicable to the instant case and the

application filed under Section 23-A(b) of the MPAC Act was not

maintainable before the RCA. He further submits