IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 17 OF JULY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 122 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

KISHOR KUMAR SHIVANI @ KESHAV S/O SHRI CHETANDAS SHIVANI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATAE JOB R/O H-10/7 NEAR SADHU WASWANI SCHOOL BAIRAGARH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. DIGVIJAY SINGH GAHLOT S/O SHRI T.G.N. SINGH R/O 26/14 H WARD NEAR RAJAVEER MANDIR BAIRAGARH BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY (NAZUL) SANT HIRDARAM NAGAR (BAIRAGARH) CIRCLE BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. ADDITIONAL TEHSILDAR BAIRAGARH DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SHIKHAR JAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This civil revision has been preferred by petitioner/non-applicant/tenant challenging the order dtd. 30.01.2023 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Najul Sant Hirdaram Nagar (Bairagarh)-Circle, Bhopal in Case No.0527/B- 121/R.C.A./2022-23 whereby on the respondent 1/applicant/landlord's Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI application under Section 23-A(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1960 (in short "the Act"), the order of eviction has been passed.

2. In short the facts are that the application for eviction was filed by respondent 1-Digvijay Singh Gahlot for his personal requirement of residence of the rented premises alleging himself to be landlord of the special category and the applicant to be his tenant, with the further contention that the non- applicant/tenant has not paid rent timely. On inter alia averments, the application was filed.

3. In reply, the non-applicant/tenant denied the ownership of the applicant, however, accepted relationship of landlord and tenant on the basis of written agreement of tenancy with the further contention that the non- applicant/petitioner is paying rent regularly. It is further contended that there are several other alternative accommodations for the proposed need, hence the respondent1/applicant is not in need of the rented premises.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned RCA has without taking into consideration the fact that the applicant/landlord is a senior citizen and is not in a position to use the first floor, erred in holding that he is in bonafide need of the premises and further he being not owner of the rented premises, the learned RCA has erred in passing the order of eviction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent 1/applicant supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Upon perusal of the available record produced by the non-applicant/tenant, it is clear that there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between the applicant and non-applicant. It is well settled that for the purpose of Section 23- A(a) of the Act, the applicant/landlord is not required to prove his ownership on Signature Not Verified Signed by: KUMARI PALLAVI the tenanted premised. Learned RCA has found that the applicant is in need of the tenanted premises and the landlord has no other suitable alternative accommodation to satisfy his requirement. With these findings learned RCA has passed the order of eviction.

8. After perusal of the entire record as well as the findings recorded by learned RCA, no illegality appears to have been committed by learned RCA in passing the order of eviction.

9. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant prays for withdrawal of this civil revision and prays for reasonable time to vacate the tenanted premises.

10. Prayer made on behalf of petitioner has not been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent 1.

11. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for granting time to vacate the tenanted premises, in the interest of justice and looking to the period and nature of tenancy, about six months time fo