;:J^<; • ^..-s-r1^ •" -s'.ii'-'".. -;ii:S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL,^SPUR CivU Revision No. 176/2004 Jugalkishore Pahwa, son of Sewaram Pahwa, aged about. 58 years, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh lCGt Sudhakar Mulcund Athaley, S/o Late Mukundrao Afhaley, R/o Darogapara, Raigarh, The. Aad Distt. Ralgarh (CG) present address-491, Priyadarshini Nagar, Ralpur (CG) REVISION UNDER SECTION 23{E) offhe C.G. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT. 1961 : Shri Vipin Punjabi, Advocate, Adv. for fhe applicant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri with Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocates for the respondent. ^^8-2009) 1. By fhis petition under Section 23(E) of the C.G. Accoiamodation Control Act, (briefly, the Act) fhe tenant/applicant challenged tfae correctaess, iegality and propriety of the order dated I-10-2004 passed by the Rent Controfling Aufhority, Raigarh on the appUcation nled by the non-applicant/ landlord. 2. Brief facts necessarv' for disposal of fhis revision are fhat the laadlord filed an application for eviction of fhe tenant on tlie ground that (he premises fai possession of the teaant were required by hiin bona fide for his residehce. The tenant was granted leave to defend. Taking advantage -of the same, he filed written statement. Parties led evidence. The Rent Controlluii Authority after hearing fhe parties, granted the application m favour of the non-applicant/landlord. Setng dissatisfied by the order passed by learned Renf ControUing Aufhority, ,the tenant has come up in this revision. IE;: ''•y^ ,f "'l. 'fl ^aw^ ^ "'!': '^.^' n" -teSslit 3. Shri Vipin Punjabi, leamed counsel for the applicant would contend fhat the landlord beiag a retired employee of the State Bank of India cannot be said to be a retired servant of a company owned or controlled by the Central Governiaent in terms of Section 23(Jj(ii) of fhe Act. He would furtfaer contend fhat the fiadhis recorded bv leamed Rent ControUing Aufhoritv with regard to the need is perverse, for fhat, he reUed upon the decision tn the case of Shankarlal aad aur. -v- Smt. Kamla Devi Nayak reported in 200l(5) MPHT 550. 4. Per contra, Shi-i Kishore Bhadnri, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant, would submit that fhe landlord is a retired servant of State Baiik of India, which is a company controUed by the Central Govemment. Therefore, the landlord com.es under the category as envisaged under Section 23(J)(ii) of the Act He would further contend fhat leamed Rent ControBinj Authority has passed the order based on appreciation of evidence led by the parties. 5. So far as fhe first contention raised by leamed counsel for the applicant / tenaat is concemed, it has no inerit. The Supreine Court in case of C.V. Ranaan, etc. etc. - v- Management of Bank of India and another ete. etc. reported m AIR 1988 SC 1369 in para 10 observed as under: °:10. A conspectus of the proviswns of'Act No. 23 of 1955 and Act No. 5 of 1970 read with the meanings of the term 'vy.der' referred to above leaves no manner of doubt that the State Bank of Szdia and fhe natioizalized banks are dearly establistvnents under the Central Govemment.' 6. Leamed Siagle Bench ofHigh Court ofM.P. High Court in case ofFazaI Abbas -v- Shivram Sharma reported m. 2003(2) MPWN Note - 63 observed that the Bankii-ig Compaiiies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaldngs) ^•"^ i^.. ^ s ^,,01 7. Act, 1970 provides for acquisition and transfer of undertakings and certain bariking companies and Section 9 of this Act provides that the Central Govemment may after consultation wifh the Reserve Bank make a scbeme for carryuig out the provisions of this Act. For the aforesaid reason baak faUs within the category of a corupany controUed by fhe Centi'al Governraent. The provisions of section 23-J (iij, therefore, is applicable to the case of fhe respondent. I am in respectful agreement wifh the above referred judginent of leamed Single Bench of High Court of M.P. In view of the above, the first contention raised by Shri Punjabi is rejected. So far as fhe second contention raised by Shri Punjabi is concemed, a bare perusal of the material placed on record and evidence led would reveal that the landlord / non-applicant is tn need of the house in the city of Raigarh in which city, he is not havuig any ofher alternative acconunodation. Presentiy he is residing in Raipur city along with his sons in a house which is not suitable for his residence due to tncrease of familv members. The applicant could not briag any cogent material to rebut the presumption as envisaged under Section 23(C5(tu) of the Act. So far as judgment in the case Sfaankarial and another (supraj, relied by the leamed counsel for fhe applicant is concemed, fhe same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of fhe presfent case. Therefore, ia the-~-considered opiaion of fhis Coiirt, leamed Rent ControUing .Authority has not committed any Ulegality warranttng interference in fhe tinpugned order. The revision faUs and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K-Agrawal Judge