This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant challenging

the order of eviction dated 30/07/2005 passed by SDO and Rent Controlling

Authority, Seoni in Revenue Case No.02/A-90/2004-05, whereby on the

application filed by respondent/landlord under Section 23-A(b) of the Madhya

Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), an order of

2

eviction has been passed on the ground of personal requirement of respondent

himself.

2.

The present civil revision has been filed by the petitioner/tenant on the

ground that the learned RCA has erred in passing the ex-parte order of eviction

because after dismissal of the main application, learned RCA even in absence of

petitioner and his counsel, restored the same on 29/09/2003 even without

proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner/tenant and thereafter, permitted the

respondent/landlord to amend the main application for eviction and passed the

order of eviction without giving due opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner/tenant, whereas, fresh notice to the petitioner/tenant ought to have

been issued. As such, he submits that learned RCA did not decide the

application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 23-C of the Act for leave

to defend. He further submits that during pendency of the present civil revision,

the respondent/landlord has along with other co-owners, transferred the entire

property including the tenanted shop/premises to Shri Vasdev Khatri and in

support of his submission he has filed an application under orsder 41 rule 27

CPC annexing the order of mutation dtd. 04.02.2011 passed by Nazul Officer,

Seoni. As such, he submits that now the respondent/landlord is not entitled for

possession of tenanted shop, especially in the circumstances where the

subsequent purchaser has not been substituted in place of the

respondent/landlord.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that learned RCA

has rightly passed the order of eviction and there is no illegality in the impugned

order of eviction and without disputing the transfer of the tenanted shop, he

placed reliance on the decisions of supreme court in the case of Gaya Prasad

Vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 and Shakuntala Bai & others Vs.

Narayan Das & others (2004) 5 SCC 772, with the submissions that even after

3

death of original landlord, his legal representatives are entitled to execute the

order of eviction and similar is the position in the present case where after

transfer of the tenanted property, the subsequent purchaser may get the fruits of

decree/order of eviction and he prays for dismissal of the civil revision.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

Without taking into consideration the merits and demerits of the order of

eviction, this Court in the light of undisputed fact of transfer available on record

brought on record by the petitioner/tenant, hereby allows application u/o 41 rule

27 CPC and consequently, is of the considered opinion that after sale of the

tenanted property by the respondent/landlord, the bonafide and personal

requirement of starting private clinic/dispensary by the respondent himself, for

which purpose the petition for eviction was filed, has come to an end and the

need of landlord cannot be said to be in existence.

6.

At the same time it is pertinent to mention here that, the argument

advanced by learned counsel for the respondent on the basis of decisions of

supreme court in the case Gaya Prasad (supra) and Shakuntala Bai and others

(supra), is not acceptable for the simple reason that in these cases, tenanted

premises was not transferred.

7.

In the case of Gulab Chand Jain vs. Manish Jain 1998(I) MPWN 31, a

coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:

“The eviction decree in the present case was based on the personal need of the land-

lord and that need is not assignable. It was personal to the original landlord and it is

not transferable by assignment. The transferees cannot step into the need of the

ori