^ @ IN THE fflGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR •SS! ^ ii«>y ^ 'i QVIL REVISIONMQ. OF 2)05 AFPLUCANT: . ^(l' c.^^- ^HtiShrivastara S/o Late ,t^ DwarikaRasadSaivssta ><).-^ 'u-f^y-/ ^•l^K-'"" ^•-^~-,y0..1-"' .<^" >•" ^'.^ ^" A^' I^ONAPPUCANT : abcut 58 years, readad of KfflG 483 C I^&naribhpin" DIH^ Tdisfl VMiSSS ^SmtKalawBitiRaiWd/o Late @endra Rai, resident of fhrou^i Shri Ehiqmaith Sin^ r/o Conlractor Oolany Sapda aid District Dmg (CG). MEMOKANDUM OF CTVIL REVISION CNDER/ff 33fe) Of K°/1&T -^V^I •^Sj ^WM^, riTJItl'ld, fi(<11^1< <-.'^^0:..1L1 ^l os "vt sn^iqii h-i SVJ^! ^^W ^i\^\ sn^t ?^nw: ^ifttT «ti!'i<I<'i'>i1-iin*Rif ^ 'fs1^ <rai<^i< ^TsiPgiTsn^r -90/2003 25.0L2006 Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel Shri Shailesh Shukla, counsel Heard. This revision js directed ag<^ passed by the Rent Controlling Authority") in case No.05/A-90/2q for recovery of the possession of applicant under Section 23-A of Act, 1961 (henceforth "the Acr) ha^ The-suit house was owned by Kalawati Rai is his widow who is Section 23-J of the Act filed possession of the suit house on the| the suit house for her residential accommpdat'ion in her possession i| service of summoris qipeared ond filj to defend the applicotion; but applicant to support her case and Bhoopnath Singh in evidenc^ appreciatibn of the evidence, held deceased Nagendra Rai. Nagendra for t(jre<»)plic(mt. for the non-applicant. g^inst (Ull the order dated 27/09/2005 Au't|hority, Cxjrg, C.6. (henceforl-h ^he i-2004 vide which the application the suit house filed by the non- C(ihattisgarh Accommodation Control been allowed. 1-ate Nkigendra Rai and non-applicont h^idlordof the house accordjng to applicfltion for recovery of the ground that she bona fide requires p(irpose and she has no other suitoble C)ur9- Applicant aH-hough aft-er l^d an application for obtaining leave ex-parte in the proceecRng. Nton- herself Pt. Bhagtniion Choubey Leamed Aut-hority after due 1'hat non-appliccnt is widow of the fliai, during his lifetime let the house 1(1 remainled adduded [^^fe^ IF'•^ XI-HC-22 3)ii?rqii R-ti* snt^i ^)^]c^ t' y^a __gadma -ysf ^piRra, ^xftwis, •fefray 3II^?['?RIIW ^rfttT on rent to the .applicant. Learne^l Authority furt'her held that non- applicant is landlord of the suit hoi^se as defined under Section 23-J of the Act and she has no other re4sonnble accommodation ovoilable for her residence other than the suit djecommodation, therefore, she needs the aiit accommodatiwi bona fide ftrher oum residence. Section 23-& (3) of the Act| accoFding to thot untess contrur<| landlord regarding her bona fide ne^d is to be presumed to be correct'. I am of the opinion thot thej accordance with the Section 23-JI held thot she requires the aiit ho^ for her residence. Therefore, the| not call for anyinterfei'ence. In withcosts. 'hl'<fd''il-t llltli'ir'^'fei^ -tpsKZK ^7 3TPgi[ 311^1 provides a presumption clause ond ^ is proved the requirement by the Authority after due appreciat'ion of the evidence on record properly hel^i thot non-applicant is the tandlord in of the Act and further correctly se for her bona fide re<piirement of her own residence and she has no o1|her suitable accommodation available order passed by the Authority does the result, the revision is dismissed Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge