IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 13 OF JULY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 285 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI SUNDAR LAL AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KATRA BAZAR MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AMIT SAHNI-ADVOCATE AND SMT. SARITA SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI AJIT SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NEAR GHANTAGHAR MAIHAR TAHSIL MAIHAR, DISTT.

SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE)

CIVIL REVISION No. 287 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

VASUDEO CHAWLA S/O SHRI JIYAMAL CHAWLA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O. DEVRANI JITHANI SHOP NO. 8, SIDDHARTH COMPLEX MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

..... PETITIONER (BY SHRI AMIT SAHNI-ADVOCATE AND SMT. SARITA SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI AJIT SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. GHANTAGHAR MAIHR TEH MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE)

CIVIL REVISION No. 288 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

MAHESH RAMANI S/O LATE SHRI TEERATH DAS RAMANI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAHARAJA SHOP SHOP NO. 12 MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

..... PETITIONER (BY SHRI AMIT SAHNI-ADVOCATE AND SMT. SARITA SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI AJIT SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NEAR GHANTAGHAR MAIHAR TAHSIL MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE)

CIVIL REVISION No. 289 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

BRAJENDRA KUMAR CHOURASIYA S/O SHRI GANGA PRASAD CHOURASIYA OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SHOP NO. 11, SIDDHARTH COMPLEX GHANTAGHAR CHOURAHA, MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

..... PETITIONER (BY SHRI AMIT SAHNI-ADVOCATE AND SMT. SARITA SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI AJIT SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NEAR GHANTAGHAR MAIHAR, TEH. MAIHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE)

AND CIVIL REVISION No. 290 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY S/O SHRI BHAGWAN DAS PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS VALLAGH NAGAR MAIHAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

..... PETITIONER (BY SHRI AMIT SAHNI-ADVOCATE AND SMT. SARITA SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI AJIT SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NEAR GHANTAGHAR MAIHAR TAH. MAIHAR DISTT.

SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (NONE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These revisions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:-

ORDER

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.

(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