A-^-R- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESOARH: BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHftI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA. J CIVIL REVISION N0.115/2004 Aoolicant T) Swt Chandravati bevi t)ani aqed about 74 years, Wd/o Ram Kumar Dani R/o Danipara, Purani Basti Raipur Tahsil <xnd Dist-Kaipur Vs. < Resaondents 1) Su^hil KAimar, S/o Ram Seyak 6ouram, QQed about 57 years R/o. Raipur and 80-B Pocket-A ^roup 11, Dilshod 6arden DeJhi. 2) Chhatl-isgarh Khadi Ashram, Baijna-riipara, Raipur Through VyQvasthopak, Baijnathpara, Raipur PRESENT: Shri Ratan Pusty, Counsel for the applicant Shri BP Sharma, Counsel for the respond^nts ORDER ( Passed on 17th January 2006) This is a revision under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth nthe Act") directed against the order dated 04/06/2004 passed by Rent Controllin9 Authority Raipur (henceforth wthe Authority") in Case No.5/90 (8) 90-91, vide which cpplication filed by the applicant for recovery of possession of suit accomwodation filed under Section 23-A (b) of the Act< 2) Applicant claiming herself to be the hndtady of the suit accommodation under Section 23-J of the Act, filed an application under Section 23-A of the Act for recovery of possession of suit accommodation which is in possession of respondents/ tenants. The suit acconimodation has been let for non-ressdential purpose, Applicant initially filed the application on tbe 9round of bona fide requirement for her busir^ss and for the business of her major son, Subseqij^ntly, the application has been amended and in place of her major son, the no.ws of her 9rand son A^tis^t Kumar Dani has been substituted- Respondents opposed the application- Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their case. V,. 3) Learned Authority held that Ashish Kumar Doni had his own business of Medical Store; he is not dependent on the applicant and is not a mewber of her fomily. For the requjrement of grand son Ashish, applicant is ftot entitled for recovery of possession of aiit accommodation, hence vide impugned order, the Authority dismissed the application, 4) Section 23-A(b) of the Act resads as below:- Mfhat fhe accammodafian let for non» residential purposes is re<fuired "bonafide" by fhe hndhrd for the purpo^_ai &f cantinuing ar starting his business or that of any af his majar sons or unmarriecf daajghtefs. ifhe is the owner Ihereofor for any person for whose benefif Itie accammodat'wn ishefd and that ihe hndlord or such persan has no aitfer reasonably suitabfe non'-residential accommoeiation of his own in his occupatian in the cfty ar town concemed: Provided that where a person wha is a lcxndlord has acquired any accommadation or any irstercst therein uy TrunSfw, nu applicafian for eviction of tenant af such accommodation dhall be maintainable at ifie mstance of wch person unkss a periad af one year has efapsecf fram Ihe dats af.ssjdf acqutsition.M 'v v \. 5) Froin bare reading of the above provision, it is manifest that lcxndlord has right to fite cxn application for possession of the non- residential accommochtion for the purpose of continuing or starting his own business or business of any of his major sons or un-morrted dckughters if he is the owner thereof or for dny person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and the landlord or such person has no other reas^nable, suitable non-residential accommodation in their possession. 6) Smt Chandravati Devi Danl, the applicont in her statement deposed that for business of her grond son, she wants to get the suit acconimocbtion vacated. She did not d^ase that ^ie had any business, or she wants to start any business, From her statement, »tappears that she wants thesuit accommodatiorLfor her grand son. ^ \. Ashish Kumar Dani although denied that he has any business of his own; but from the evidence of Sushil Kumar ©autam,non-applicant and Manmohan, drug in^ector and also from the statement of applicont Chandravati bevi bani who admits that on enquiry Ashishunveiled that he goes to medical shop. Further, in her statement. she also admits that Ashish Kumar bani has started business in the name of fiolden Medical Store although sub^eqi^ntly ^ie denied, it was established thot Ashish Kun<ar Dani had his own business. Learned authority also minutely appreciatin9 the evidence held that Ashish Kumar Oani is not dependent on the applicant and he had his own business in the name of ^olden MedicQl Stare. 7) Section 23-A(b) of the Act refers to major son or unmarried daughter or for any other person for whose benefit the accommocbtion is held. Therefore, it cannot be held that the provision includes grand sons within the ambit of major sons ofcour^, if the accommodation is held for the benefit of yemdson, landtord moy chim it. But in that case, it is necessary for the opplicant if she claims the accommodation for benefit of grand son, or any other person, she must plead that the accorpmodation is held for the benefit of that person and thereafter it is incumbent upon her to prove the aame. Herein the instant case, applicoint did not made ar^ averment that for the benefit of A^hish the accommodation is held nor in her statement or other evidence, the said ingredients have teen proved. padma V; ^-^ Therefore, in absence of pleadingcxnd prove for the need of her grflnd son, she wxs not entitled for obtaining possession of the suit accommoctotion for business of her grand son. 8) 9) No other question has been raised during the argument. I am of the opinion that the impugned order pcxssed by the Authority, does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. 10) Partfes to bear their own costs, Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge ^^