HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Civil Revision No.438/2014 Rajesh Kumar Rajak vs.

Smt. Sushilla Sindhia --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Siddharth Gulatee, Advocate for the non-applicant.

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

O R D E R

Reserved on : 18.12.2017 Delivered on : 03.01.2018 This civil revision has been filed under Section 23E of M.P.

Accommodation Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘The Act’) against the order dated 10.09.2014 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Rent Controlling Authority, Mandla in Case No.06 (A-90/1)12-13 whereby learned Rent Controlling Authority allowed the non-applicant’s/plaintiff’s application filed under Section 23A of ‘The Act’ and directed the applicant to give the vacate possession of shop situated at Nazul Land No.53, 65/1 & 65/2 of Nazul Sheet No.18C (hereinafter called as ‘suit shop’) to non-applicant.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant to the disposal of this revision are that non-applicant filed an application under Section 23A of Act before Rent Controlling Authority averring that she was the owner of suit shop which was given to applicant on monthly rent of Rs.375/- for 10 years. The non-applicant also executed agreement in this regard on 07.07.1997 in favour of applicant. The period of lease was expired on 31.07.2007, even then, the applicant did not give the vacant possession of suit shop to her. She is a widow lady and is in need of that suit shop for running her beauty parlor and for that purpose she has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of her own in her occupation in the city due to which she gave notice to applicant on 27.06.2007 through an advocate for vacating the suit shop but applicant did not vacate the suit shop so the applicant be directed to give the vacate possession of the suit shop to the non-applicant. On that, the Rent Controlling Authority registered the case No.06(A-90/1)12-13 and issued notice to applicant. The applicant after appearing before the authority filed an application and raised objection that the suit premises was let out to him on a lease for a period of 30 years and as the said period was not over the proceedings under the provisions of the Act were not tenable. The non-applicant also executed an agreement in favour of applicant and sold out the suit premises to him. On that, the Rent Controlling Authority dismissed the non-applicant’s application observing that the dispute between the parties was to be resolved only and only by the Civil Court. Being aggrieved from that order, non-applicant filed Civil Revision No.340/2010 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.02.2013 holding that the objection, if any, raised by the applicant and even if the applicant was entitled to any claim in that respect, he either required to obtain the leave of the Rent Controlling Authority to contest the claim or to approach the Civil Court for obtaining any order on the strength of any agreement that was said to have been executed by the non-applicant in his favour. At any rate, the Rent Controlling Authority was not correct in rejecting the claim of the non-applicant and matter was remanded back to Rent Controlling Authority with the direction to decide the application of the non-applicant in terms of the provisions of Section 23D of the Act and also directed that the applicant, if he so wished, may make an application for grant of leave to contest before the Rent Controlling Authority. On that non-applicant filed a Review Petition No.661/2013 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 11.11.2013 and directed the Rent Controlling Authority that there was no need for the applicant to file a fresh application for grant of leave to contest the claim of eviction made by th