'%, 5\ ± BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} fCIVIL REVISION N0. ^ —709) REYISIONER N^^-APPLICANT m \.,.-;y^' \^'A^' t ^^' ^•yy' ^' ^•v'\^ 1.^" /-" ESPONDENT ^PPLICANT Pekhan Lal Sharma S/o. Shri Late - Ramsahay Awasthi; Aged about 54 years; Govt employee - Assistant Grade - II; Office of Executive Engineer Electric Mechanical Heavy Plant Division Depart of Water Resource Bilaspur (C.G.) YERSUS >Ku. Jyoti Thakur S/o. Shri Late - ^ K. Singh; House No. -C - 178 Yadunandan Nagar Tiphara, Bilaspur (C.G.) CIVIL RIVISION U/S23IE10F THE C.G.RENT CONTROL ACT .\ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. 59/2009 Revisioiier Non-applicant Pekhan Lal Sharma VBRSUS RESPONDBNT Ku. Jyoti Thakur AppHcasit Judgment Post for pronouncement of order on \\ /10/2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge / COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hevis&oiier Koss-applicaat RESPONBENT Applicarit Cml Revision No. 59 gf 2009 Pekhan Lal Sharma Versus Ku. Jyoti Thalair CIVIL MEVISION U/S 23 (El OF THB C.G. RENT CONTROL ACT S.B. ; HON^BLE N.K. AGARWAL, J :- Shri Somant Pandey; counsel for fhe applicant/tenant. Shi'i AnLirag Verma, counsel for the respondent/landlord. ORDER (DeUvered on ^ -10-201 1) The revision is directed against the order dated 09.01.2009 passed by the Rent C/ontromng Aufhority, BUaspur (for short the R.C.A.^ m case No. 01/A/90(6) 2007- 2008 granting eviction order against the applicant./tenaiit under Section 23-A of the M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act. (henceforth 'the Act'). 2. Non-applicant./laiidlord, a physically handicapped lady, applied for eviction of the suit accommodation in possession of ttie applicaiit on the ground of genmne reqLurement for residence for herself, alleging fhat aft.er purchasing the suit accommodation from its previous cwner Smt* Vniila Devi Chourasia, she becanie its owner; the suit. accommodation let ^" f£ l^ ^- ^.^' out for residential purpose is required bona fide for her occupation as her residence aad she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of her own in her occupation in the Clty. 3. In the reply, applicant contended that he is not the tenant of Ku. Jyoti Thakur and is residing iu the suit accommodation as its owner and the application filed is not maintamable. 4, Both the pmlies led evidence, The R,CA^ on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: non-applicant, al'ter purchase of suit accommodation from Smt. Viin.la Devi Choiirasia, becaiiie its owner; she requtres the suit accoinmodation bona flde for her residence; aad granted eviction order m non-applicant's favour; also directed for payment of aiTears of rent amounting to Rs.34,776/-, Hence^ this revision. 5< Shri Soniant Pandey, leamed counsel appearing for the applicant./tenant, would submit: no documentary evidence has been llled by fhe non-applicant t.o prove her ownership over the suit accomniodation^ in the absence whereof, ttie eviction order granted by the R.C.A., is per se illegal and desen^es to be set aside. ^^'^. \ ""•^ ;^^, ^ 'i. '••^'^'J.S -%. ^^/;' ^»H^^ 6. Per contra, Shri Anurag Verma, lem'ned coiinsel appearmg for the non-applicant/landlord supported tiie eviction order and submitted: fhe R.C.A. has passed ttie eviction order after appreciating the material and evidence on record in its proper perspective and fhe eviction order desei-ves to be upheld. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record ofR.C.A. including order impugiied. 8, Indisputably, non-applicant is a handicapped lady^ Comes within the ambit of special category of landloyd within the meaning of Section 23-J of fhe Act. 9. In the application under Section 23-J of the Act for leave of the Court to contest fhe application, applicant has not assailed the eviction application by denying non- applicant's ownership and clauning himself to be its ovnier. In Ex.P.9 i.e. reply offhe applicant filed before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), BUaspur in Miscellaneous Enqutry Case No.B/4/2006-07, it was admitted by him that he is residing in fhe suit accommodation as tenant of Smt. Vimla Devi Chourasia and paying rent regularly; and vide sale dated 22.2.2006 Smt. Vimla Devi Chourasia sold the house to Ku. Jyoti ThakLir. Thus, his status as tenaiit of the suit accommodation and that the suit accommodation has been purchased by the non-applicant has been admitted by the .^:^,"s^" ."'"^A ^: applicant. Notice was also sent to the applicant regai'ding above acquisition of title demanduig vacant possession of tlie suit accommodation. Being a tenant, the applicant has no right to challenge derivative title of non-applicant in tJie facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In view of above, the R,CA. has rightly held the applicant as tenant to the non-applicant. The applicant. could not prove purchase of suit accommodation from its previous owner by filiiig documents of title or even receipts, in fhe absence whereof^ the plea taken by the applicant regai'duig his ownership of the suit accommodation is devoid of merit. Moreover, his remedy, if any lies before fhe Civil Court. Further, the plea of raaintainability of the eviction petitiou has not been raised by the applicant in the application filed by him for permission of the CoLirt for grant of leave to contest the case. In such circumstances, since the applicant has not raised any compticate question of relationship of landlord and tenant, fh.e plea raised is sans substance and the R,C,A* has not committed any illegaJity in holding relationship of landlord and tenant befoveen fhe applicant and the non-applicant. 11, As far as bona fide reqLureinent is concerned^ the tinding has been recorded in favour ofthe non-applicant. The, non-applicaat succeeded to prove her bona lide need for residence under the provisions by adduciag cogent evidence in this regard. The applicant failed to rebut the presumption in non-applicant's favour of her need as envisaged under Section 23-D ofthe Act 12. In view of above, tlus Court does not find any jurisdictional illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the R.C.A, warranting int.erference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, therefore, the revision fails and is dismissed; 13. However, two monfhs time from today is granted to the applicaiit to vacate the premises. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge