A'F-^. ^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR- S.B. HON-BLE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA. J CIVIL REVISION N0.186 of 2003 Petitioner Non-applicant :.S:i';:<|ti:';'; :!;;•?,;, . ^- Versus o ii) iii) iv) v) vi) Hirand Kodwani, aged about 50 years, S/o Kanhaiyalal Kodwani, Surunanak ftadio & Electrical Stores, M.6. Road ftaipur (C6). Smt. Sushila Jadhav Widow of Manohnr ftao Jadhw, R/o Station Road, Raipur; &ied during pendency of this revision, her legal representort'ives brought on record are - Kishore Jadhav, S/o Manohar Lal Jadhav, aged about 50 years. Ashok Jadhav, S/o Mcnohar Lal Jadhw, aged about 52 years. Smt Pushpa Jadhav, W/o. Late Arun Jadhav, aged about 40 years. Smt Sabha Jadhav, W/o Lsate Oeiip Jadhav, aged about 39 years. Bela Shinde (daughter), W/o Arvind Shinde, aged about 40 years. Ku Asha Jadhav, D/o Manohar La! Jadhm, aged about 44 years. All residents of Station Road, ftaipur (Chhattisgarh). PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the Petitioner. AAs. Madhu Modi, counset for fhe (egal representatiyes of the respondent. ^ OR b ER ( Datsd 3rd Januory 2006) This is a revision under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") A directed against the order dated 21.02.2003 passed by the Rent ControlSing Authority (for short "Authority"), Raipur in ca.as No. 5/90 (8) 97-98 whereby the petition filed by reqiondent/applicant under Section 23 - A of the Act for recoyery of possession of the suit accommodation has been allowed. 2) Respondent/Appticant claiming herself to be the landlord in Section 23-J of the Act, filed an application under 23 -A of the Act for an order directing the tenant/petitioner her in possession of the suit accommodatioh on the averment the •tenant fciled to poy monthly rent from 18/06/1997 to i/1997 anc! the ajit accommodation is required bona fide by her the business of her unmarried daughter Ku. Asha Jadhav. Tenant/Petitioner denied all the ailegations leveled against him and specificclly denied the bona-fide requirement of suit accommodation by landlord/respondent for the purpose of tailoring shop of her daughter Ku. Asha Jadhav on fhe 9round that she is already running a tailoring shop in the name of "Vandana Knittm9 Centre" situated in a building napiejy^atriChhaya. for also ^^? 3) Both 1+ie pcrties in support of their case adduced evidence. Learned authority after appreciating the svidence on record held that reiationship of hndlord and tsnant exists between the parties. The !icant bsing awidow is landlord within the definition of Section 23- of the Act. She bona-fide requires the non-residential suit xommodation for- the business of her adu!t un-married daughter. Learned Aul+iority' furtiier held that landlord/respondent has no suitab!e accommodation except the suit accommodation for the siness of her daughter. Learned authority also held, that the rent of the suit accommodation was Rs. 1400/- (Rupees One thousand four hundred) pe" montii and tenant/petitioner Is !iable to pay the arrears. Learned outhority directed the tenant/petitioner to pay •ttie arrears to vaccte -^he suit accommodation within two months. 4) Heard leamed counsel for both the parties. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authority hos no Jurisdiction to decide the urrears of rent and to pass an eviction order on the ground of arrears of rent. Per contro, learned counse! for the tenant/respondent argued that learned authority has jurisdiction to decide the rate of rent as well arrears, and has also ?ower to pass order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. 6) From baire readlng of Section 23-A of the Act, it is crystal ctear that the Authority has power to order to put !andlord in possession of the accommodation on futfillrsent of the condi+ion prescribed therein, therefore, ih the instant case, if it is found that jandlord/owner of the suit accommodation bona-fide requirss it for continuing the business of her unmarried daughter and no o'ttier "easonable syitnble non-residential accornmodation of her is in her occupstion in that case only the Authorit)/ hasfower^sjsass an order ::i:::':i?^-'^^^ i»'-:j 'a of eviction. Learned Authority has no power to pass an eviction on the ground of breach in payment of arrears of rent. 7) Section 23-H of the Act reads as below ;- "23-H. Deposit of rent pending proceedings for eviction or for reyision—Theprovisions of sectian 13 ^dlapply "mufatis mutandis" in respect of cn cpplication for recovery of possession of accommodation under Sect'on 23- A and in respect of proceeding for revision under Section 23-E against final order by Ihe Rent Controlliry Aulhority under Section 23-C or under Section 23- D as they apply to a ajft or proceeding instilvted on any of the grounds referred to in Section 12 : Provided ihat no suit or proceeding for evsctwn of •rtie tenant is pending before any Court at any of its stages in reta+ion to •tiie smne accommodation " S) From the aforesaid provision, it is clear •rtiat the provision of Sectlon 13 of the Act has been made applicable in proceedings instituted under Section 23-A of the Act. Therefore, leamed Rent Controlling Authority can determine rate of the rent and also the arrears payable to the landlord. 9) Learned counset for the petitioner relying on the judgment rendered by Hon'bte the Apex Court in the case of ^esna Nath Vs. Pooran Lal.' reported m (2001) 5 SCC 7 contended that Section 12(l)(f) and 23-A of. the Act are same for the purpose of determining bona fide requir-ement, therefore, in deciding application under Section 23-A of the Act same scale which is required for Section 12-<(1) (f) is to be applied, ond in the instant case landlord/applicant failed-to prove her bjmafidej'equirement. On the #'^ss,,, contrary, leamed counsel for the landlord/applicant supported the impugned order. 10) Section 23-D(3) of the Act reads as below :- Sec. 23-D(3) : "In respect ofem appSication by a landlord it sha/1 be pressmed, unkss Ifie contrary t's proved, the requirement by ihe landhrd wilh reference to chu^ (a) or ctause (b), as the case mcy be of Section 23-A is bona fide." From the above provision, it is clear that it is to be presumed the requirement by landlord with reference to clause (a) or of Section 23-A of -rtie Act is bona fide unless the contrary It means burden has been shifted from landlord to tenant tenant is required to prove contrary', whereas m Section 12(l)(f) he Act,the burden does not shift but lie on the laidlord to prove IS his bona fide requirement. WiUS-.,-V!i 12) Here in the instant cose, learned Rent Controlting Authority, after minutely apprecicting the evidence, held that the dauQhter of iandiord i.e. respondent Ku. Asha Jadhw is doing her business in their family residentia! accommodation. In night those rooms are used for tiying. Apart frorn that, no suitable approach to that place is available, therefore, held that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by the londtord/respondent for business of her daughter. Learned Authority atso held that no suitable non-residentiat accommodation in possession of landlord/respondent is available in her possession for the business of her daughter. 13) Tenant Hiranand Kodwani, Witness No.l in his cross-examination has admifted that he has se-en the residential occommodation of landlord and'his family which is Matrichhayc Mansion. From his cross examination, it is also apparent that, VandanaKnltting Centre is in this ^s^i mansion. In his cross-examination, he further admitted that, no other shop is vacant. The Matrichhaya Mansion is occupied by Sushila Jadhav, Asha Jadhav and other family members. When tenant himself is admitting in his cross-examination that the Matrichhaya Monsion is residentia! accornmodation, where Ku. Asha Jadhav is doing her business of kniti-ing, it meoins she is in need of rion-residential accomwodation for her business and when the admission of tenant himse!f is that no other non-residential buitding is vacant, it means Sandlord has no other non-residentiat reasonabie accommodation a'/ailable in the city for the business of her daughter Ku. Asha Jadhay. Set apart from the evtdersce of landlord Smt. Sushila Jadhav and her daughter Ku. Adia Jadhav. it was also proved that in residentia! acconsmodation Ku. Asha Jndhav is continuing her knitting business and no other reasonable suitable vacant non-residential acconrsmodation for her business is with Smt. Sushila Jadhav. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, iearned Rent Controlling Autiiorit),', after minute appreciation of evidence, correctly he!d that landlord requires non- residentia! suit accommodation for business of her daughter bona fide and no other suitable non-residential accommodation for business of her daughter is in her possession. 14) Learned Rent Controlling Authority although vide impugnsd order directed to pay arrears of rent but for eviction has taken into consideration the ground that applicant/landlord requires the suit non-residentia! accommodation bona fide for business of her daughter <md no other reasonable vacont accornmodation is in her possession, therefore, •Hie findings and order passed by the Rent Contro!ling Authority do not suffer from any infirmity which require to be interfered with by this Court in its revisionat jurisdiction. The revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 15) Parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge ! •'"';•• .<>/-^^.