The landlord's bona fide need for premises is presumed under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, unless the tenant proves otherwise.

ORDER

With the consent of parties, matter was heard finally. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1961") being aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned Rent Control Authority and SDO, Revenue, Juni, Indore in case No.015/A-90(7)/2023-2024 whereby the learned Authority has allowed an application filed under Section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act filed by the respondent for vacating the rented premises against the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent Rukmabai has filed an application before the learned authority under Section 23 of the Act of 1961 for vacation of the shop nos.3, 4 and 5 situated at ground Floor, House No.60, Anand Nagar, Behind Sapna Sangeeta Cinema, Indore by submitting that the said shops were given on rent to the petitioner for Rs.25500/- per month and as per the agreement. Since, the respondent has bonafide need for the suit shop for commencing business of cloths, she has filed the suit for eviction of appellant. She aha also averred that there is not other suitable accommodation for the purpose of her business. Hence, the suit has been filed by the respondent before the learned authority/RCA.

3. The learned authority, after taking the evidence available on record has allowed the application of the respondent and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the vacant shops to the petitioner within two months. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned executing Court has failed to consider the factual aspects of the matter while passing the impugned order and not considered the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the full and final amount towards rent, therefore, the application was not required to be considered by the authority. Further, it is submitted that bare perusal of the agreement reveals that Liladhar Malviya, while executing the rent agreement has shown himself as owner of the suit shop whereas, the respondent has narrated herself as the owner of the suit shop, in such circumstances, the question of ownership is required to be decided by leading evidence on this issue. It is further submitted that the learned authority has passed the ex-party order against the petitioner whereby the right to hearing of the petitioner has been closed, hence, the petitioner deserve an opportunity to submit its version in the interest of justice. The respondent has not filed any document on record to establish the ownership and even not stepped into the witness box to prove his case. It is further submitted the provisions of Section 29 of the Act of 1961 has not been complied with whereas the procedure was required to be followed by the authority as Civil Court and no issues were framed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has also also filed a suit for permanent injunction and also made a prayer that the suit shop may not be evicted without following the due process of law. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the arguments raised by the petitioner are hyper technical that the petitioner is not an owner of the suit premises whereas a lease deed has been produced by the respondent in her favour, therefore, there is no question to decide the ownership of the suit premises since, the respondent is owner of the suit shops in question by way of lease deed executed by the Indore Development Authority. It is also submitted that in the rent agreement (Ex.P/5), it has clearly been mentioned that the shops in question were given on rent for a period of 11 months for consideration of 21,500/- per month and the same has bear the signatures of both the parties, therefore, the learned RCA has all rights to decide the application of the respondent under Se