IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 103 of 2015 ABDUL MUBEEN Versus SMT. NUTAN Appearance:

Shri Kunal Thakre - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Nishant Jain - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER By way of this revision the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order of Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) dated 13.12.2014 whereby the RCA has ordered eviction of the present petitioner from the shop in question. 2. The application was filed by the landlord being special category of landlord and she had filed application under Section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction of the present petitioner on the ground of bonafide need of the plaintiff as well as on the ground of the suit shop being in dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation. The RCA has ordered eviction on the ground of bonafide need which is challenged by the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the defence of the petitioner-tenant was erroneously struck off by the RCA vide order dated 27.05.2013 for not depositing the rent during pendency of the proceedings. The second ground vehemently raised is that the suit can be filed by the special category of landlord before RCA only for bonafide need and for other grounds the case has to be filed before the regular Civil Court.

3. Per contra, the impugned order is vehemently supported by the respondent-landlord.

4. The first ground raised is that the suit shop was sought to be evicted on two grounds i.e. under section 12(1)(f) and 12(1)(g) is concerned, it is stated that the ground under section 12(1)(g) could not have been included along with the ground under Section 12(1)(f) which is of bonafide need whereas 12(1)(g) relates to the premises being unfit for human habitation. So far as this ground is concerned, the RCA has ultimately passed the order of eviction only on the ground as laid down under section 12(1)(f) which is for bonafide need. Therefore only for the reason that apart from bonafide need the ground of shop being unfit for human habitation was included, would not vitiate the entire proceedings before the RCA and the RCA could have validly passed decree/order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need of landlord.

5. So far as the other ground of striking of the defence is concerned, the plaintiff-landlord had filed an application for striking of defense on ground of non-deposit of rent which was replied by the petitioner-tenant and in the reply simple denial was given that the contents of the application are denied. Nothing was placed on record that whether the rent has been deposited, or not. The petitioner had even challenged the aforesaid order before this Court in CR No.59 of 2014 which suffered rejection on

10.02.2014 though with liberty to raise the ground in appeal.

6. Before this Court various receipts of rent alleged to be deposit of certain amounts in bank account of one firm M/s. Phoolchand Uttamchand Jain are placed on record and it is being stated that these were the rents deposited in the bank account of the plaintiff as she had refused to accept the rent. If the plaintiff had been refusing to accept the rent, then the rent could have been deposited before the RCA itself, which was not done and even before the RCA, this defense was not taken that the rent is being deposited in the bank account of plaintiff. Therefore, this Court would not consider this defense for the first time in these proceedings.

7. So far as the proceedings conducted after striking of the defence is concerned, it is seen that after striking of the defence, the RCA has not even granted opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff and her witnesses. Striking out the defence would not mean that the tenant cannot cross-examine the plaintiff to demolish the case of the plaintiff. It would only mean that the tenant cannot place any of the special defences before the Court. Otherwise the right of the tenan