Eviction proceedings under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act uphold the presumption of bonafide need; the burden of proof lies with the tenant to rebut this presumption.

ORDER

Since common issue is involved for adjudication in all the petitions, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts of the case are being taken up from the Civil Revision No.862/2024.

2 . The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in Revenue Case No. 0036/B- 121/2019-2020 re-numbered as Revenue Case No. 0004/Review/2024-25, whereby the Rent Controlling Authority allowing the application submitted under Section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act , 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1961') has directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the rented shop to the respondent.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the earlier round of litigation, the Rent Controlling Authority (For short RCA) without taking reply on record had passed an order of eviction, which was challenged in Civil Revision No. 245/2020. This Court vide order dated 05.01.2020 had allowed the revision by remanding back to the RCA with a direction to take the written statement already filed by the petitioner on record at the cost of Rs.3,000/- and then decide the pending application filed under Section 23 of the Act, 1961 within a period of six months as provided under Section 23 (D)(1) of the Act, 1961.

4. In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the RCA has decided the present matter renumbering the case as Review. However, it is admitted by the parties that the RCA in compliance of the orders and directions issued by the Court had adjudicated the matter.

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is bad in law on the count that the RCA without considering that there is no evidence in support of bonafide need of the respondent has adjudicated the matter and found such need proved in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the RCA has committed a grave error of law and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the respondent has foregone the right to adduce the evidence in the matter vide the statement made before the RCA reported and recorded in the order sheet dated 12.03.2024 of the RCA. Thus, there is no evidence tendered by the respondent/landlord in support of the bonafide need and thus, it cannot be presumed to be proved in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the RCA in its discussion has also opined that the petitioner has not paid rent in time and thus, there are arrears of rent against the petitioner. However, the order has been passed only on the ground of bonafide need of the respondent.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 117/2013- Shyamlal Vyas vs. Inderchand reported in (2017) 3 MPWN 273 to submit that the Court in that case has opined that the presumption under Section 23 -D(3) of the Act is in respect of bonafide requirement, but it does not shift the onus to lead the evidence in respect of other aspects of the claim.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Chowdamma (D) by LR and Anr. v. Venkatappa (D) by LRs and Anr reported in AIR Online 2025 SC 792 to submit that the effect of parties failure to enter into the Witness Box has been discussed and opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 has held that where a party to the suit does not a