^•'^ . IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR Bl Petitioiier R-espondent C.R.No..'.^..V2006 ^ Asliu Dutt S/o Shri Deveadra Natii Dutt Aged about 38 years, R/o Shri Ram Towers, Vyapar Yihor, Bilaspur ^ Tahsil & District Bilaspur CG. Versus : Smt. Bhagwati Devi Widow ofLaite ' Shri Tejumal Kanjani, aged about: 74yrs R/o Torwa, Tahsil & Distdct Bilaspur CivU Revision Under SectionJSE of C.G.Accommodation control Act Read with Sec. llSofC.P.C. XI-HC-78 3TT^T^Tf§RT^ cTSIT 3TTOT ^TW "^, ^1*1^1T Sh+lich 3'^T •:qPTTo^T, ^TH^Il(o, (sfcni^^< ^Y^ .(^'^7vp.Y<^^...., ^ ^QQ ^ ^^- 3Ti^?rq^7 (^cji^st^eT) 5^cTT^K ^f?cT ^O^T 02.02.2007 Appiicant-Ashu Datt b^ Shri bevendra P. Singh. Non-Applicont-Smt.BhGt Advocate wlth Shri R.L.BQjpay|ee Jhis revision is beino admission today with the cons( Heard. The appiicant is agarit passed by the Rent Controili^ No.3/A-90(6)/2002-03. Learned counse! for thk contended that the impu9ne^ the cpplication fiied by thej 2.6.2003 doe&not disciose a 4\ Section 23-A of the Chhattist (hereinafter referred to as t^ I hays heard the rival objection rolsed by the iearne^l Section 23-A which Chhottisaarh Accommodction for eyiction of tencnt on 9^ <=t)I^F<<l41T1 HTR^ff ^ fe^ <f^<^« ^3:rf^T3TT^T Shri Upendra BhQrat, Advocote with ^wati Devi by Shri K.A.Ansari, Senlor disposed of finaily at the ^1090 of snt of the parties. 2ved by on order dated 27.06.2CX)6 ig Authority (R.C.A.), Biiaspur in Case £applicd^t hcs, durlng his ar9unients, order is ilable to be set QSide since non-appiicQnt before the R.C.A. on round for eviction of the tenant under larh Accommodatjon Control Act, 1961 ic Act). :ontentions at length on the Qforesaid counse! for the appijcant. ^ails under Chapter III-A of the pontroi Act, 1961 is a specia! provision ^und of bona fide requirement which XI-HC-78 3^';:3TPTTcTO-, ESiTfl'H^KS, fc<dty^< ^I^MI ?h*1T^ ^ 200 3Tf^?T q^^ (<?3^3^sr) 3TI^T^T^i<=b cT8TT3^?Tsh^|cb ?^TTW:^f5cT3T1^T ^i^Foi^l^ w^ff ^* te^t <Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T enures to the benefit of a !andlo the persons, mentioned in Sectk speedy remedy to the speciai Section 23"J of the Act, to seek bona fide requirement for reside Sectlon 23-A of the Act ^ 23-A.Speda! provl^ ground of bona f?de anything contained in any force or contract to the on appiication, signed and rufes 14 csnd 15 of Order Code of Civil Procedure, l^ piaint to the Rent Contro) of the fo!lowin9 ground^ tenant to put the accommodation, nameiy^- 'd who falis within the category of jn 23-J of the Act. It provides a c!|ass of psrsons, enumerated under , eviction of ths tenant on ground of ilice. tad as under; tion for evjctjors of tenant on feqyirement^—Notwith^tandmg ?ther !aw for the time bein9 in c^ntrary, a iandlord may submit |erified m Q manner provided in of the First Schedule to the ^08 (V of 1908) as if it were a !Ing Authority on one or more for an order directing the lord in possession of the ^ ianfci (a) that the acco?^ purposes is reqiji for occuDation the csccommodatlion or such person residentia! accdmmodation occupation in th^ imodation let for residential ired "bona fidetl by the landlord s residence for whose benefit, is held and that the !and!ord no other reasonably suitabie of hi3 own in his city or town concerned. Expfanatian. —F<^ tta€cammodation\ mcludes— fhe purposes of fhi^ clau^c, ief far residenfial purpose^ P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3:5?:^Rn^T, y>Tfl.'y<i(o, fc)cii'y^< +1 l*l<rlT ffi^ich ^[ 200 S?TM5|cb (y<t^<s<^T) W^T^T^Jch cT8TT3:n%T$b^|cb 5^<TTW ^TfN'-3TI^T -3-1 chl^f^41r1 WT^ff ^* fe^t <Rl<-cl|< ^3:rf^T3TI^T (i) any Qccommod) u^e o^ G re^ consent of th^ for any non-re^ (ii) ony accommod^ an express p| residential pur 2tion which hcsving been iet for idence j^ wlthout the expres^ ; londiord, used wholly or partly sidentia! purpose; tion which hos not been let under rovision of contrcict for non- 3ose; (b) that the purpose^ ss re^ for the ^j^ine^ or t!^ unmQrrted dau<| or for any acconunodatiorl such person non-resjdential occupation In t| accorbmodGtion Set for non-re^identiai juired "bana fide" by the icndlord purpo|se of continuing or startin9 his (at of any of his mqjor sons or |hters, if he is the owner thereof fcerson for whose benefit the is heid and that the iandiord or ^as no other reasonably ^uitabie accommodation of his own in hte }ie city or town concerned^ Provided thGt wh^re a psrson who is a landiord ha^ Gcquired any accommod| tran^fer, no applicatior^ accommodGtion sho!! be| ^uch person unlsss a pe^ thc date of ^uch acqutejl) It is thus clear that a I( Section 2 3-J of the Act may fide requirement for occupcstio member of his family, or for| htion or any interest therein by for eviction of tenant of such maintainable at the instonce of 'iod of one year hcs eiapsed from ion." indbrd fQllln9 within the ccite9ory of ile Gppiication on the ground of bona ^ as residence for himse!f or for any any person for whose benefit the r.i.u. XI-HC-78 ^s[ ^i^i^i^, ^Tn^^Ko, ic«ni^^< *ii+i^i sh^icft ^ 200 3TT^T q^R? (yi^^T) ^n^T^rf^ri^ cT8TT3TT^T$bHI<=b 5^TTW ^f^T'3T^T ~^' ct)i<4f^41<i ^i^<riT^fte^<(^^i< ^3Tf^q'3TT^rT ^. occommodation is heid and that other reasonobiy suitabie resid^ his occupation jn the city or towr^ The non-applicGnt-iandior^ 23-A of the Act on 2.6.2003 bel Biiaspur. ParagrQphs 4 and 5 of 1| 4. ^^^ct-d ? ^ 6| ^TW 'g^PTT ^TFT "^ T?q7TFT 'W^ ^ 'q^jT";Tl| |the iandlord or such person has no IntiQi accommodation of his own in concerned. fited cn Gppiication under Sectlon [ore the Rent Controliing Authority, |he applicGtlon read as under'. ^38 'cFT^T^ '^7 '!T? ^ 'ST^F^ I^TT ^TT f^% dl^ch^ 3raTr-3raTI sft 5. f^St 1% ^g- ^ZRT ^rf^ f^T3r XT? ^i' ^ ^N ?'&^i ^ ?tr ^T?T ^ ^r whisper thct the iandlord need^ occupation QS residence for him^ Shri K.A.Ansari, learned S\ next pointed out that a!thou9h ^ tenant on the ground of bona f herself or for any member of ^if^j^t^ 'q^ ^?TFT ^t ^t^r^ -s3^r -q^ 4 -?f^ ^TC^H ^hr^ ^ vdq^^ ^" STraf^FT ^ Iif^l ^ ^ ^sRt^T- ^TT I '°F^ f^tn' ^ f^P? 'SR ^FTT ^^ -WT^ 1998 "^ ^rar^ ^icif^chi c^ TTT^- ^ ^^ ^ ^r ©rounds No.4 and 5 medtioned above do not even have Q the accommodation bona fide for s!f or for any member of his fGmily. snior Counsel for non-applicant had specific ground for eviction of the ide requirsment for residence for ^er family te not discio^sd by the XI-HC-78 3^cT ^i^Krt^, ^Tfl<ili(o, f^<ni<-i^< ^f 1+1^11 Sh^HT^ ^[ 200 3TTif5T<T9W (^crf^^T) 3TT^rr ^)T f^rr^ cTSTT 3TR?T ^RT^ ^cTTWHfgcT^TT^T -5- chl<M[^l41-l HTR^ff^fe^ <Ri<•<.!< ^^Tf^TW^T ^'.^ thle application filed before paragraphs 7 and 11 of the appiicGnt-tencnt by itself 23-A of the Act. Learned co< of the said notice which read :i7.. ^fft Sij^lPl^j f^?^ foT1? 'ftc^cT ^%?T ^TcpR ^ f?RT +ichMid ^pnr? ^TT^ f^P? Ti^TFT Rb^l^ ^ra 7§^ 11. ^ -SiraTf^TT T?C?? ToF? +1<^jv1.lc1 iRT^ STRilPl^l ^ ^Rcil^ Sli^lPi^i 3TPT c^| T^ Tif^ ^ wrra" 'qtN inptTT Trfe ^ Rent Controlling Authority, yet notice sent by the landlord to the G vaiid ground under Section jnsei referred to paragraphs 7 and 11 under:- ^t 'cR^ '^TcpR f^?T^ TT? ^ ^ s-TT ^R ^S^T '^ ^ ^cil^! f^ ? ^t ^?T^ '^ 5^ ^ f^ 11 ?^T 1T? ^TPT^ ^Tra 5-6 '3T?S ^ ^ ^?T "gN^n" ^t 'sft? TT^TR^ ^^r ^ inpr •c(5^ti T^iT tl ^ 'SPT^ Wft 'pi1 ^ "qT^ tl "cm^TPT 7^PTi:T ^ ^ ^S^ -^ ?pRCTT Rcjl^ ^f ^ t i ^M^I'td ^fe^T ^TRTJ1T ^ ^I ^i^l^i f^TW 31.5.2003 ^l =F?^ t j" conlstitutes <bs ^ -^ ^ The argument advance<| applicant cannot be that G specific 9round under ^ the notice. Paragraphs 7 <& the suit hou^e is required bo| by the iearned counsel for the non- counteno^ced. Even otherwise, I do not find tection 23-A of the Act is disciosed by p.1 do not specificolly menticn whether ha fide for the re^idence of the non- XI-HC-78 s^T^i^icn^, ^TTl^^<o, fsfdi^y +1I*1<<1I »i+1ich ^[ 200 3TT^?r ^raw (^cii^^T) W^T^rf^TT^ crsn'3:n^T$t)Hicb ?^<TTW: ^rf?cT 3TT^?T -6- <=hl^Id41v1 H\H^\\ ^ ^Q <Rl<^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T ^ ^o^ Qppiicant. It GJSO does not mer the suit house te required for ? make a mention that the iandJo residentia! QccommodQtion in tl purpose. I om of the con^id^ ground availabie under Sectior Qpplication filed before the R.< notice wouid not by itself cons the tenant. In thte view of the mat1 that no ground under Sectio di^closed, the appiication dat< before the R.C.A. was liabie tc the impugned order being contrc In the resuit the Civil order dated 27.06.2006 is s. appJicGtion dated 2.6.2003 unc disciose any 9round for eviction Ition the namc of the son for whom ^esidence. The notice ai^o does not ^d ha^ no other reasonably ^uitabie ^e city or town concerned for this ^red opinion thoit uniess a specific 23-A of the Act is taken in the ^.A. G non-specific reference in the ^itute G vaiid ground for eviction of er, I am of the con^idered opirsion ^ 23-A of the Act having been ^d 2.6.2003 fiied by the iandiord outri9ht rejection, and therefore, ry to !ow is iiable to be set aside. ^evi^ion is aiiowed. The lmpu9ned bt aside on the ground that the ler Section 23-A of Act does not Under Section 23-A of the Act. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ ^ P.T.O. ^