,.^ c-/' .•~'A-^-r'/;:":"?' HSGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BiLASPUR SingSe Bench :- HQn'bSe Shri^jay Kumar Shriyastava,-J. Civis Revision No. 58 of200S ApDijcant Tenant NoR-ApDJicaRt Landiord Smt. Usha Joshs @ Usharaj Joshi, Aged 51 years, R/o Bilaspur (CG). Versus Smi. Saroj Awasthi, Wd/o Late Man'ik LaJ Yadav, R/o BHaspur (CQ). Present := Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, counssi for the appiicant. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai, Advocate with Shri Saurabh Sahani, counsel for the non-appiicant. ORDER (Dated 7th November, 2008) This revision under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodati'on Control Act, 1951 (henceforth "the Acf) has been filed by ths tenanf (appiicanf) against the order dated 28-2-2006 passed by the Rent Controiiing Authorit^, Bitespur (henceforth "the Authority"), in case No.6/A-90(6)/2003-04, vide which recove"y' of possession and arrears of rsnt has bsen aiiowed in favour of non-appiicant. (2) Facts materisi for disposai of this rsvision are that non-appiicant Smt. Saroj Awasthi cjaiming herssif to be a iandiord in accordance with Ssction 23-J of the Act fiSed an appiication undsr Ssction 23-A of the Act for eviction of appiicant-tenant from the suit sccommodation, /,'?ter a,li& pieading that she bona fide require the accommodation for her residentiai purpose. The accommodation has been rented @ Rs.SOO/- per month to tenant (appiicant) who, despite service of notice by registered postdid not vacate the sust accommodatjon. (3) Appiicant after obtaining permission to contest the appiication for eviction fiied by non-appiicant fited written statement. Tenant-appiicant in ©ytAq ©ouepiAeSuibhppe Aq peftnqej ueeq iou eAeij sasseuiiM eqi yioq p siueuie^s eqi •uogepouituoooe i|ns ©qip Ape| puej/jeuMO eqi si eys leiji 'iueoijdde-uou p pueis 941 seiBJoqojjoo OS|B jndsejig 'uoftejodJOQ jediojuniAl Aq penssj iqiseMV fojes p jnoABj uj id{©osj^ t-v IjqiMxg pue uoftiyed j,o iu8Lu6p8|/vious|oe £|,-vlUOLunooa 'iqise/AV SB)|!A uos jsp|Q J9t| Aq p8ZI|89J SBM »U9J Q^ pu8 qiuoiu jed -/O08"sy 10 ®IB-IB ie lysop ^ijsn '^8 °t uogepoiuLuoooe ijns eqi ie| eys icqi pe^s Aj|eouo6aieo lueuu^Bis J©MUj lyiSB^v foje9 -1013 'iue.i eqi Bui2i|B9j SBM OH "qiuouu jed "/008'sy P ®IBJe vs iqsop eijsn -1019 lueoiidde 01 uoiiBpoiuiuoooe }ins ©41 psiuej I^ISBMV ?oje9 jsq^otu SJM £OOZ '^BIAI ui yeu^ pesodep sey eouepiAe siq ui O^M t}ueoj|dde-uou Aq peuiuiexe ueeq seq ii|iseMv se>||A 'iqisBMV SB)||A :A{®uteuiueoiiddB-uou 10 uos si uoiiepoiuuuoooB lins 941 ^o pjo|pUB|/jauMO inq 'uojiBpouiuioooe iins Qqi p lueuei si ©48yfinoqiijB icqi punojfi ©qiuo iiesjsy pue iueoj|dde-uou useMieq ui iueua» pue pjo|pue| y> diysuoiieis.i ©41psiuep iueueHueot|ddv (g) •luej p sjeejje ys iu©uiAedjo^ jepjo pessed OS|B pue uojpiAe jo jepjo peuSndLui ©41 pessed 'sp^ euoq uoftBpoiuuuoooe iins eqi ssjinbsj pue uosepouuiuoooe p©^ueje ui SUIAJI ss eqs 'AIIO eiii Uj eouepisej jsq Jio^ uoiiBpoujuioooe jsqio ou seq eqs 'uojiBpoiJUijuoooe iins p jeuMO 941 sj ©qs leqi Bujpjoq lUBOijdde-uou/pjotpuBj p jnoAB| ui eindsi.p eqi pQpiosp eouapjAe eqi Sujtejoejdde jeye Aiuoqiny peuieei "iueo||dde--iUBU9i 9111 Aq peonppe ueeq seq eoueptAe ou jennc|ej ui seejeyM lueojjdde-uou 941 Aq p9| ueeq SBL| eouspjA®(BJO puB Aje?u9iunoop eseo s.pjo|puB| p ijoddns u| (^) •epff euoq uoitepoujLuoooe iins eqi ©jinbajiou seop pue A||IUB( jeq qijM 6uo(e jeBeN uepueuAea ys peieniis esnoy je^ioue jeq ui Sujpisej si lUBOjjdde-uou leyi p8ieis OSJB pue lueuai '& pJO|pue| Buieq ^©SJOLI pue lueoijdde-uou ueaAA»eqdiysuoseiej eq»peindsip IUSIUQ^S UQHUM j©4 ">s- tenant-appiicant. On the other hand, applicant-tenant was served with notice Ex-A/9, in para one of the notice it was mentioned that the house in possession of applicant was owned by Smt. Saroj Awasthi. Reply sent by tenant-applicant is Ex-A/12, jn para one of her repiy she did not deny the ownership, on the contrary, she stated that she is residing in your house known as Shyam Sadan. !n whole of the reply, she did not challenge the relationship, but from her repiy, it is dear that Vikas Awasthi was realizing rent on behalf of his mother. (6) Here in the instant case applicant not only failed to rebut the evidence of landlord/non-applicant but on the other hand, has admitted the said relation of tenant and landlord in between her and non-applicant. Learned Authority after minutely appreciating the evidence and material on record has correctly held that in between applicant and non-applicant the retationship oftenant and iandlord exists. (7) Smt. Saroj Awasthi in her statement categoricaliy stated that she is living in a rented house of Ram Kumar Soni, she has taken the house at a rate of Rs.1,800/- per month, she has no other suitable accommodation in her possession. Her evjdence has been corroborated by statement of Vikas Awasthi. So far as house situated at Devkinandan Nagar is concerned, from the statement of both the witnesses it is evident that the said house is used for residence ofVikas Awasthi and his family. Learned Authority after due appreciation ofthe evidence accepted the contention of non-applicant that she is living in a hired house and has no other suitable accommodation of her own in her possession for her residence. (8) Section 23-D (3) of the Act reads as under : "Procedure to be followed by Rent Controlljng Authority or grant of leave to tenant to contest.—(3)In respect of an application by a landlord it shalS be presumed, untess the contrary is 4 the requiremeRt by the landiord with reference to ciause (a) or ciause (b), as the may be of section 23-A is bona (9) From ths aforesaid provision, it js cn/stal clear that unless contrary is proved, the bona f,de requirement of Sandiord is presumed to b@ correct. Here in the instant case, neither from any material brought through cross- examination of v.'itnesses adduced by non-appiicant nor by adducins any evidencs, the burden that iiss on appi!cant/tenant has been discharged. Therefore, from the un-rebutted presumption as v/eii as from the evidence on record Jt v/as to be accepted that requirement of suit accommodation of non-applicant vvas bona^de, and iearnsd "Authority" correctiy hojd so. (10) in revisjona! jurisdjction of this Court, this Court has been authorized to examine the iegaiity, propriety or correctness of the impugned order and j am of the opinion that the order passed by the iearned Authority rests on su^cient reiiable- evidence and does not caIS for any interference. (11) In the resislt, the revision is iiabie to be dismisssd and is accordingly dlsmissed. (12) Partiss to bear thejr own cost. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge gown