Order On Board

12 .0 5 .202 3

1. This civil revision filed under Section 23E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short “the Act of 1961”) read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) is directed against the impugned order dated 27.07.2019 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, whereby the application filed by the non-applicant herein (landlord/plaintiff) under Section 23A of the Act of 1961 has been allowed and a decree of eviction has been passed in his favour vis-a-vis the applicant herein (tenant/defendant) has been directed to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the order.

2. The aforesaid impugned order dated 27.07.2019 has been challenged on the following factual backdrop that the original landlord/plaintiff, namely, Suderlal Kaushal, being retired government servant, has filed an application under Section 23A of the Act of 1961 claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide need to evict the defendant/tenant (applicant herein) and put the plaintiff/landlord in possession of the accommodation being Khasra No.763/78, Patwari Halka No.18, R.I.C.- Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) in which the defendant/tenant (applicant herein) is running a shop in the name and style of “Anand Kirana and General Stores” since 15.10.1993. The said application was filed by the plaintiff/landlord on the ground that the plaintiff requires the said shop for business/non-residential purpose and he has no other suitable alternative accommodation of his own in the township of Durg. It has been further averred by the plaintiff/landlord that the said shop was in the name of plaintiff’s wife and after her death the same has been transferred in his name and in the name of his daughter, namely, Godavari Kaushal. The plaintiff has retired from his service and wants to start a business alongwith his daughter’s husband and he does not have any other shop in the city of Durg. During the pendency of the said application, on 04.02.2016, the original plaintiff died and the name of his daughter- Godavari Kaushal was substituted being his legal heir. Further, during the pendency of this revision, Godavari Kaushal also died and her legal heirs have been brought on record in this civil revision.

3. The tenant/defendant (applicant herein) filed its written statement before the Rent Controlling Authority opposing the said application filed by the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff has two more shops which have also been given on rent and the plaintiff has a shop in the same complex which he got vacated and is lying closed and the same can be used by him for his bonafide need to start a business. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for order of eviction.

4. The learned Rent Controlling Authority by impugned order dated 27.07.2019 has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff/landlord finding the plaintiff/landlord being able to prove his ground for eviction as provided under Section 23A(b) of the Act of 1961 and thereby directed the tenant/defendant (applicant herein) to vacate the suit premises, against which this revision has been preferred.

5. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, leaned counsel appearing for the applicant (tenant) submits that since the original plaintiff- Suderlal Kaushal died on 04.02.2016 the application for eviction is not maintainable in light of the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs. Joseph and another 1 and further the plaintiff/landlord has failed to prove that he has no other reasonably suitable alternative non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation/possession in the city of Durg. A such, the impugned order dated 27.07.2019 deserves to be set aside and the present revision deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/landlord (non-applicant) herein supported the impugned order dated 27.07.2019 by submitting that the plaintiff has clearly proved his bo