^•^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singli Bengft C.R.NQ, ^3-_Qf2Q06, APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT APPLICANT :- ^ Shri Jawaharlal Nagdeva, son of G.D. Sanchandani (wrongly written correct Sumame is Chandani), resident ofKatora Talab, Raipur and R.D.A. Building, Sharda Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), V E RSU S :- ^ Smt. Satti Bai, widow ofLate Sabhag ^hand, son ofBidamal, resident ofLakhe Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTIONVfi -E OF C.G. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. 62 OF 2006 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Jawahar Lal Nagdev Versus Satti Bai ORDER Postfor |(» -2-2010 •A Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge V. t :;1. 1. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.R. No. 62 OF 2006 APPLICANT RESPONDENT Jawahar Lal Nagdev Versus SattiBai SINGLB BENCH:- Hon. Shii N.K. Agaiival, J PRESENT:- Shri Bhisma Kingar, Adv. for fhe applicant Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocatefor ttie respondent. ORDER (^-2-2010) 1. This is a revision by fhe tenant under Section 23-E of ttie C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (briefly, <(the Act^) against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controlltag Authority on the application of Smt. Satti Bai, widow. under Section 23-A oftheAct 2. As per memo of revision, undisputed facts are that fhe applicant is a tenant of late Sabhag Chandra i.e. husband of the non-applicant, of fhe suit premises since last 26 years and after death of Sabhag Chandra, the non-applicant is his landlady. The premises was let out for non-residential purpose aad is being used as such by the non-applicant. Monfhly rent of the suit premises is Rs. 600/-. The non- applicant is a widow and comes m fhe category of landlord given in Section 23-J oftheAct 3. Case of the landlady is fhat fhe accommodation was let out for non-residential purpose to the tenant by her husbaad late Sabhag Chand and after his deafh, entire property has been partitioned between legal representatives and fhe suit premises fell in her share, also lease deed was executed by Reipur Development Authority in her favour wifh the consent of her sons, and since than, she is the landlady of tenant. The tenant is in arrears of rent for 20 months. She further pleaded that she has no means oflivelihood after the deatti of her husband, therefore, she requires bohafide the suit premises for bustness purposes which^she will do with the help of her grand-son Ajay Kumar Khemani, son of deceased DiMp Kuniar Khemani. 4. Case of fhe tenant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He is not in arrears of rent as alleged. The suit premises is not bonafidely required by fhe landlady. She has no experience of business, she is an old aged iUiterate lady. She is properly maintained by her sons. Specific nature of business has not been pleaded. The whole story is concocted for the piirpose of eviction of the non-applicant from ihe suit premises. Thls fact is also deiiied that the applicant does not have any alternative accominodation to start business. 5. The Rent Controlling Authority after appreciation of documentm^r and oral evidence adduced by both tiie parties has held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenaiit between the parties; she requires it bonafide for her busuiess purpose and passed the order ofeviction. 6. Dui'ing the course of heartng of this revision, leamed eounsel for the applicaiit Shri Kiagar has argued that exact nature of bustness which she wants to start has not been shown; she is an old lady; does not have any experience of business, other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for the purpose'ofbusiaess is available with her, she is being weU maintained by her sons. She has not examine fhe grand-son to show her need. The need pleaded is ungenuine. The application has been filed wifh an ulterior motive to enhance the rate of rent. She wants to sell the house, and, fherefore, learned Rent Controlling Authority has fallen in error in passtng the order impugned. For fhis, reliance has been placed by Shri Kmgar upon tiie following case laws:- i. Gonga Bai -v- Dhanraj (1990 (II) MPWN Note 92) ii. Jemail Singh-v- Kanhaiyalal (AIR 1986 MP 53) iii. Shanti Bai -v--Namomal Sindhi (1996(2)Vidhi Bhasvar 113 iv. Ashok Kum^r-v- Kishan Singh (2001(11) MPJR 269) •QOUQpIAQ aq^ jo uop.Bp9jddB-9J uo siqTssod si MQTA jaq^ouB ^Bip. punoj§ 9qi uo iiduns ^ou pirc ssjaAiod ST ^i JT UOTSTAQJ ui paqjnisip 9q ueo Apaipuei 9ip jo ^u9TO3Ltmb3J apg Buoq si^ 8mpjB§3j 'V'O'H 9ip Aq ^ p9Apje ^OBJ jo Smpug sqj, •gopsnE' JO 3§BIJ.IB3Sim §UpU9A3jd JOJ AjBSSSOQU ^U9pC3 91^ O^ ^pLIO 9UTCS 3tp §mp933X9 'O'd'O J° STT UOp33S J3pUn UOISTA9J JO J3MOd JO S^TIIIH Qlp. O^ siqissod SB A^jesu SB db95[ o^ spBUi sq p]noqs ^dnrs^B ue ^aq^ ST uopBoipui 'joMod o'ye^dd'B ireip J9SS81 ^.nq 'o'j'o ai^josii UOT^OQS jspun uopoipsT.mf ^BUOTSTA^J 3lp liei^ J9§JBI ST ^OV 9T^ JO 3-gS UOpOQS y£q pQj.isjaoo j9Mod {BUOISIAQJ Qqj, 'pa^nmi ST ^uoT^ny §UI[pJ^UOO ^UOH QI-R ^q pQpJ009J sSuipug: 31^ ui ^JIIOD STEp A^q 33U3J9JJ9tUI JO 9d03S 91^ ^61? ps^B^s Aijeop sq ^snm yi <8AOqB pQUOT^UQm S^UTOd 9CR q^TM §UT[B3p 9JOJ3Q •OT ^ 9iq^UOSB3JTHl ^HOqM JO 3SJ9AJ9d 3JB 3SB3 ^.UQSajd aif^ m 'v'O'H sqi ^q VB p9Au.ie ^.OBJ jo s§mpugsip jsi^sqM Sl •]|jnOQ SKp JO UOT-tBJaplSUOO JQJ s^pj qoiqASL uopssnb sqj, •6 •^uotpnv gi.nnoj^uoo ^usy 9ip jo pjooaj 91^ pire pauSnditiT jopjo sq^ pssnjsd 'sapjed 91.]^ JQJ psunoo psujBQi: pjesq 9A^q i 'g 892; nOO (S)SOOS) reqnrcy ^nig -A- JOLPOLTB pire reg lAsa ^OTS 'HI 98 n00 (l)SOOS)TCre§38V^O. I-imsBM -A- SBpiedoo •H (oi nood)50os) iqinjej Kj.Bi©dqsnj -^ms -A- urep j^um^ POUIA 'T -:SMBt 3SBO §uiMonoj 3i^ ps^p SBq 9t{ '^ioddns STC[ UI 'UOTtOTpSUnC PUOISIA9J S^l JO 3SpJ3X9 UE ^inOO STI^ JO a3U9J9JJ9tUT JOJ ]JB3 ^OU S30p '93U9pTA8 gUiqOUIIO pUB ^U3§03 uo pssBq ST 'v'O'H aq^ Aq pass'ed japjo uopoiAa 9tp t.ui.p ^iuiqns ppioM ^p^ptrei sq^ joj psunoo p3UjB9i[ '^sqnQ BipU9{reqs uqg 'BJ^UOO JQJ '^ (6£IndH (S)866T) n-[P S yBiiTsjiH TBuroqpBy -A- ^dno PBSBJ<} JBSIUQ -reuin>i SBSHA 'A "s ^ 11. In order to appreciate fhe rival contentions raised by the counsel for fhe parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce fhe relevant provisions contained in Sectiori 23- A(b) and Section 23-D(3) ofthe Actwhich read as under:- SSectlon 23-A. Special provision fer eviction of tenant on ground ef bonaftde reqtdrenient.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other lawfor the time being in force or oontract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verffied in a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as ffit were a plaint to the Rent Cksntrolling Authority on one or more ofthefollowing groundsfor an order directing the tencmt to put the landlord in possession ofthe aocommodation^ namely:- (a) ^ XXX XXX that the csccommodation let for non-residential purposes is required "bona jide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his bvsiness or that of cmy qf his major sons or unmarried daughters,yheis the owner thereof or /or any person for whose beneflt the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residenticd aowmjnodation of his own in his occupcitum inthe aty or town cancemed: Provided that where a person who is a landlord hcis cfcquiredany acconunodation or any interest therein by transfer, no application for evictu>n of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date ofsuch acqwsition. Section 23-D. Procedwe to be fellowed by Rent Controlling Autherlty or grcmt oflecvue tp tenxsnt to contest.- w (2) XXX XXX. XXX. XXX. (3) In respect ofan apptication by a landlord, itshall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, the requirement by the landlord with referenceto dause (a) or d.ause (b),ds the case may be ofsecthn 23-A is bona fide." 12. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is clear that once it is pruna facie found as a fact that the requirement of the person as contemplated by law exists, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved fhat the requu-ement of fhe landlady with reference to Clause A or Clause B as the case may be of Section 23-A is bonafide. It has been argued by Shri. Kinger fhat fhe exact nature ofthe business has not been pleaded by her, therefore, the need pleaded is not genuine. The above question has already been answered by the Supreme Coiut in case of Rsiikumar KhaAtan and others —v-Bibi Zubatda KIaatun and aaother reported in (1997) 11 SCC 411 wherein in pam 4 of the judgment, it has been observed as under:- W4. It is cS.earfrom the averments made in the fxbove- quotedparcigraphs that the plaintiffs ctsserted thatthere were no ofher mecois of liveUhood with them and cis svch they wanted to setup their own business in the premises in dispute. The High Caurt, however, came to the Wndusion that apart fron^ fhe above-quoted plecidings it wcxs neoesscxry to plead the nature of the business which the appellant-plaintijfs wanted to start m the premises. We are o/ the view that the High Court fell into patent error. S, wcis not necessary for the appeUant-tandlords to indicate the precise nature qfthe business wfuch they intended to stcxrt in the premises. Even if the nature of busmess wauld have been indicated nobody could bind the landlords to start the same bvsinessin the premises after it wcis vacated." 13. The ofher argument advanced by Shri Kingar that the landlady being old aged person and has no experience of running any business and, therefore, her need is not genuine is also sans merit It is weU setfled that a person can start business and she need not have prior experienee m thisregard. Ifan old landlady in order to maintain herself after death of her husband wants to start business with the help of her gmnd-son, then her need cannot be said to be iingenuine. It is tdte law fhat landlady /; landlord is fhe best judgmeht of her/his requirement and has complete freedom in this matter. So far as the ofher pOints which have been raised by Shri Kingar are concerned, there is no material placed on record by the tenant so as t6 show that the landlady has other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in fhe city of Raipur for business purposes. The need pleaded and established. by fhe landlady is her "' K \M^. 1 own need. It is not the need of her grand son. The premises is required for her own need to eam her livelihood wlfh the help and aid of her grand-son and, therefore, non- examination of her graiid-son by fhe landlady is not fatal to the need pleaded by her. 14. Shri Kingar by referring the statement oftenant would contend fhat tncreased rate of rent has been demanded by the landlady which suggests fhat her need is not bona flde. After going fhrough. fhe entire evidence, it would reveal fhat the dispute regarding enhancement in rate of rent was between the husband of the landlady and the tenant. The landlady after death of her husband never demanded any such increased rent. Even as per the tenant, he never paid rent directly to the landlady so the question of demanding rent at enhanced rate does not arise. 15. So far as the contention raised by Shri Kingar that the landlady has not proved her bona fide need is CQncemed, it also has no substance. It is not in dispute fhat imtial burden has been discharged by fhe landlady by pleading her case specifically in terms of Section 23-A(b) of the Act and also by examming herself on that. On the contrary, the tenant has failed to rebut the presumption of law arose in favour of the landlady in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 23-D of the Act The finding offact arrived at by the R.C.A. regarding bonalide requirement of landlady is based on evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or wholly unreasonable. 16. So far as the case laws cited by Shri Kingar in cases of Gonga Bai (supra), JemaiZ Singh (supra), Shanti Bai (supra), AshokKumar (supra).and Vikas Kumar Onkar Prasad Gupta (supra) under Section 12(l)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Conti'ol Act are concerned, fhere is no quarrel with the proposition of law that appropriate pleadings of bona fide requirement are necessary and mere desire of landlord is not sufficient aad the landlady should also plead the fact of non-availabiUty of alternative accommodation but the same are of no help to him as it has been held earlier fhat the ^^,. ^> respondent/landlady has succeeded in establishing her requirement m tenns of Section 23-A(b) of the Act and 1lie applicant failed to discharge his burden. 17. For the foregoing, I do not find any substance in the ¥rreviston. The revision fails and is dismissed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge (v 1 i '•^, ^