- (1.)In this revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the applicant has assailed the validity of the orders dated 4-1-2013 and 8-2-2013 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority by which the application preferred by the non-applicants under Section 23-A(b) of the Act, has been allowed. Background facts leading to filing of the revision briefly stated are that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act on the ground that they have retired as Surgeon and Doctor, respectively from the Health Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The accommodation in question, which admeasures 1007 sq. ft. situated in Mansarovar Complex, Bhopal, was let out to the applicant/tenant for a period from 14-8-2007 to 15-8-2008, and the non-applicants bonafide need the accommodation for the purposes of opening a mini-operation theatre and a clinic and that they do not have any other alternative suitable accommodation. It was further pleaded that by a notice dated 5-9-2008, the tenancy of the applicant was terminated and thereafter, an application for eviction was filed. The applicant herein filed an application under Section 23C(1) of the Act seeking leave to contest prayer for eviction, which was allowed, pursuant to which she filed the written statement. It was inter alia pleaded in the written statement that the non-applicants have initiated a proceeding for eviction as they want the rent at the enhanced rate. It was further pleaded that the non-applicants have suitable alternative accommodation in the city of Bhopal and since the non-applicants have acquired the accommodation after their superannuation, therefore, they do not fall within the purview of Section 23-J of the Act.
(2.)The non-applicants adduced their evidence in support of their claim, however, the applicant/tenant failed to adduce evidence despite opportunity being granted. The Rent Controlling Authority by order dated 4-1-2013, which was amended subsequently vide order dated 8-2-2013, passed an order of eviction against the applicant. In the aforesaid factual background, the applicant has approached this Court.
(3.)Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by the non-applicants before the Rent Controlling Authority is vitiated in law, as the summons were not served on the applicant in the form specified in IInd Schedule appended to the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has referred to decisions in the case of Uttam Rajak Vs. Smt. Shanti Bai Chouksey, 2013 5 SCC 202 and Satyanjay Tripathi and another Vs. Banarsi Devi, 2011 3 MPHT 28. It was further submitted that the landlords have failed to prove that they belong to the category specified under Section 23-J of the Act, as only photocopies of the Pension Payment Order namely Exhs. P-1 and P-2 were filed, which were admitted in evidence, despite objection raised by the applicant. In this connection, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Karri Chinna Venkata Reddy and others, 1994 AIR(SC) 591. It is also submitted that the non-applicants have failed to disclose the alternative accommodation available to them as well as to plead its unsuitability and have also failed to prove that the accommodation in question is suitable for the purpose of non-applicants. In this connection, reliance has been placed in the case of Hakimuddin Saifi Vs. Prem Narayan Barchhiha, 1998 1 MPLJ 203 and Gyasi Nayak Vs. Gyanchandra Jain, 2010 3 MPLJ 203. It is urged that opportunity to lead evidence ought to have been granted to the applicant, and an application in this revision in this behalf has been filed. It is also urged that competence of a person to do business is also required to be proved. In this connection, reference has been made to a decision in the case of Rakhav Lal Vs. Sardar Kirpal Singh, 2007 4 MPHT 339. It is argued that even if the tenant does not lead any evidence, yet the landlord is required to prove all the ingredients of eviction. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision in the cases of Daulat Singh s/o Parmanand Dangi Vs. Devi Singh (dead) through his LRs. Chain Singh, 2011 2 MPLJ 328 and Ramdas Vs. Smt. Shakuntaladevi, 1995 JabLJ 272. Lastly, it is argued that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is narrower than an appeal, but wider than revision. In support of aforesaid proposition, reference has been made to the decision in the cases of Ramesh Chand and others Vs. Raj Kumar, 2002 1 MPLJ 40 and Surtyomal Vs. Smt Chandabai, 2005 5 MPHT 333.