ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior dated 21-6-1999, in Case No. 37/86-87/907, whereby the Authority directed that the tenant (non-applicant before the Authority) shall handover the vacant possession of the suit-property to the landlady/applicant, within a period of two months, failing which, it is open for the landlady/applicant to get the recovery of the possession, in accordance with law. It was further directed that the tenant/non- applicant shall pay the rent atthe rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the landlady/applicant till the date of handing over the possession. By the aforesaid impugned order, the Authority also directed the payment of Rs. 9,600/- to be made to the tenant/non-applicant, as compensation, by the landlady/applicant, at the time of taking over the possession from the tenant.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the case arc that the landlady/applicant has a non-residential accommodation comprising one halt, one tinshed and a open chowk, which is a portion of her house bearing No. 35/1099, situated at Khirwardkar Ka Bada Loyiya Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. The said accommodation in question was let out to the non-applicant/tenant by Balveer Singh, the husband of the landlady, at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. It was contended that since the landlady was in actual need for her own to start a business of steel furniture and as there is no suitable alternative accommodation available in the city, she filed the application under Section 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', for eviction of the tenant/non-applicant from the accommodation in dispute. It was also asserted in the application that the non- applicant/tenant did not pay the rent since April, 1985 inspite of making demand and as such he is in arrears of rent.
3. The non-applicant/tenant Jagdish Chandra Khandelwal on 19-4-1988, filed an application under Section 23-C of the Act, seeking leave to defend, which was heard and allowed on 4-10-1988. The non-applicant thereafter filed an application under Order 6 Rule 5, CPC on 13-1-1989, for directing the applicant/landlady to furnish batter particulars, which was replied by her on 2-2-89. On 22-2-89, the Authority passed an order whereunder the applicant/landlady was ordered to furnish requisite particulars as sought for within three days, and the case was fixed for 9-3-89. On 9-3-89, the applicant/ landlady furnished the batter particulars in compliance of the order dated 22-2-89. The matter thereafter remaining pending on one count or the other. On 16-4-1990, the written-statement was filed by the tenant/non-applicant denying the claim of the applicant/landlady. On 11-3-1991, the applicant/ landlady produced the list of the witnesses. The tenant/non-applicant, on the other hand filed various applications seeking amendment. The last application or amendment was moved on 8-4-1994, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 4-5-94. It was this order which was challenged by the tenant in Civil Revision No. 315/94, before this Court, which was allowed on 15-1-96 setting aside the order dated 8-4-94. By the order dated 15-1-96, the Trial Court was directed to decide the case expeditiously as far as possible within three months.
4. The applicant/landlady in this case examined herself as A.W. 1, and one Surendra Singh as A.W. 2. The tenant/non- applicant on the other hand, examined himself as D.W. 1.
5. The learned Court below after going through the entire pleadings raised by both the parties, framed three issues which are as under:--
^^1 D;k izkfFkZuh oknxzLr LFkku dhyS.MyksMZ Hkou Lokeh gSA vkSj og vdsyh nkok djus ds fy, l{ke gS
2 D;k izkfFkZuh dks oknxzLr LFkku dh Lo;ads LVhy QuhZpj cukus ds O;olk; djus ds fy, okLrfod ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gSA
3 D;k izkfFkZuh ds ikl mDr O;olk; ds fy,oknxzLr LFkku ds vykok xzsVj Xokfy;j esa vU; dksbZ mi;qDr ,oa lqfo/kktud xSjvkoklh; LFkku fjDr vkf/kiR; esa gS**
6. The first issue is to the effect as to whether the applicant is the landlord of the disputed property and she is competent to file a suit. The second issue is to the effect as to whether the applicant bona fide requires the disputed accommodation for carrying manufacture and steel furniture's business. The third issue is to the effect as to whether the applicant (except the present suit-accommodation) is in occupation of any other suitable reasonably alternative non-residential accommodation of her own in the greater city of Gwalior. The Court-below having gone through the entire record and the material on the record, found that the applicant/landlady has successfully proved her claim and found all the aforesaid three issues to be proved in her favour. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 26-8-1986, the Court below directed eviction of the non-applicant/tenant from the suit accommodation.
7. Against this order dated 26-8-1996, the non- applicant/tenant filed a Civil Revision No. 1261/96, before this Court, which was partly allowed by the order dated 13-5-1998, Para 44 of the order is pertinent and reproduced below;--
'Considering the facts and circumstances indicated hereinabove, this revision succeeds in part and the impugned order is set aside keeping in tact the finding of the Rent Controlling Authority in respect of Issue No. 1. The findings on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 shall stand set aside with a direction to the Rent Controlling Authority to reconsider and decide the issues No. 2 and 3 afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove.'
8. The matter then further proceeded with the Court-below and after considering all the material again and the facts and circumstances especially with respect to Issue Nos. 2 and 3, as directed by this Court, vide order dated 13-5-1988, the order was passed on 20th October, 1998, whereunder the bona fide need of the applicant/landlady and non-availability of the suitable accommodation to the applicant/landlady both were found to be proved and the eviction order accordingly was passed against the tenant/non-applicant. The tenant against this order dated 20-10-1998, filed a Civil Revision No. 1244/98 before this Court, which was heard and allowed on 18-12-1998, directing the Authority to fix a date and hear the parties afresh and decide the case on merits after considering the entire evidence, which is admissible in law. The case was directed to be decided within two months from the date of passing of the order of this Court, i.e., 18-12-1998.
9. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 18-12-1998, the Court-below proceeded further and passed the order on 10-2-1999, holding the sale-deed dated 13-11-90, which was produced by the applicant, to be admissible in the evidence on record. Against this order, the tenant/non-applicant filed a Civil Revision No. 157/99, which was allowed on 16-4-1999, setting aside the order dated 10-2-1999 and directing the Authority to decide the case on the basis of existing evidence on record, after hearing the parties.
10. The Court-below then again proceeded with the matter and after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the entire material, which was placed before it, passed the order dated 21-6-1999, which is impugned in the present revision- petition filed by the tenant/non-applicant.
11. Shri A.M. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the tenant/applicant before this Court, contended that the Court-below committed grave illegality in passing the impugned order, which is totally incorrect, illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the order passed by the Court-below is in utter violation of the directions of this Court as contained in the order dated 13-5-1998, passed in Civil Revision No. 1261/96 and therefore the findings recorded by the Court-below are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside.
12. Shri T.C. Singhal, learned counsel representing the landlady/non-applicant before this Court, on the other hand, contended that there is no illegality. It is pointed out that Section 23-A of the Act is a Special Provision for eviction. He stated that the landlady in this case, being widow comes under Special Category of the Landlords under Section 23-J (III) of the Act. He pointed out that Section 23-D of the Act, provides procedure to be followed by the Rent Controlling Authority, which is relevant and quoted below :--
'23D. Procedure to be followed by Rent Controlling Authority or grant of leave to tenant to contest.-- (1) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Rent Controlling Authority shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable and decided the same, as far as may be within six months of the order of granting of leave to the tenant to contest-application.
(2) The Rent Controlling Authority shall, while holding an inquiry in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow as far as practicable, the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (IX of 1887). The Rent Controlling Authority shall as far as possible, proceeded with the hearing of the application from day to day.
(3) In respect of an application by a landlord, who is a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services or a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or any State Government, or a widow or physically handicapped persons, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary proved,that the requirement by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be of Section 23-A is 'bona fide'.'
13. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions, it is contended that the procedure prescribed under clause (2) is of Small Cause Courts including the recording of evidence and further that under clause (3) procedure is there in favour of the landlady unless contrary is proved and as such it is submitted that the eviction order is justified.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. The main question for consideration before the Rent Controlling Authority and also before this Court is as to whether the landlady/non-applicant genuinely requires an accommodation in question to satisfy the bona fides of the need and secondly she has no other suitable alternative accommodation in the city for carrying on her business. The case has to be examined from that angle. The Rent Controlling Authority having gone through the entire material on record, found and gave a categorical finding that the accommodation is bona fide required by the landlady and there is no other suitable alternative accommodation available in the city and while holding so passed the impugned order.
16. Thus, the important question which crops up for consideration is as to what is meant by bona fide requirement.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the term of 'bona fide' in the case of Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1996) 6 SCC 222, and held as under:--
'....the term bona fide or genuinely refers to a State of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant.....'
18. In the aforesaid case in para 13, it was further observed that:--'..... Once the Court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord, for the premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one - accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respective by the Court. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.'
19. The Apex Court has further in the case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co., reported in 2000(1) JLJ 186, relying on the decision taken by it in Prativa Devi v. T. V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353, held in para 10 of the judgment that:--
'..... It is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.'
20. The case is therefore to be examined from that point of view, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act and further the provisions of Section 23-D (3), which stipulates that in respect of an application by a landlord, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, the requirement by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b) as the case may be of Section 23-A is bona fide.
21. As stated above, the landlady/non-applicant Smt. Kulveer Kaur filed the present case for eviction against the tenant/applicant, on the ground of bona fide requirement to carry a steel furniture's business, for want of suitable alternative accommodation. She stated in the application that she is the owner of the House No. 35/1099, situated in Khirwardkar Ka Bada Lohiya Bazar, Gwalior, one portion of which consisted of one hall, one tinshed and a open chowk to which the applicant is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and he is doing the business of furniture. It is further mentioned in the application that the tenated accommodation is bona fide required by the landlady to carry her own business of Steel Furniture and there is no suitable accommodation available in the city to meet out the need. It is also stated that a notice, as per Ex. P-2 was sent to the tenant through registered A/d, Ex. P-3 by a counsel on her behalf, which was replied by him as per Ex. P-4.
22. The landlady/non-applicant, in this case examined herself as A.W. 1 and Surendra Singh as A.W. 2. Paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 of the evidence of A.W. 1 and further the relevant paras of her evidence, while she was cross-examined, at Pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 are reproduced below :--
^^3- oknkxzLr LFkku dh eq>s dPpk eky j[kus ,oaQuhZpj ,oa vkyekfj;ksa ij jax djus ds fy;s vko';drk gSA esjs ikl Xokfy;j uxjfuxe lhek esa vius dPps eky j[kus vkSj jax djus ds fy;s dksbZ LFkku miyC/k ughagSA vej iSysl okyk LFkku flQZ 'kks :e gSA mlesa jaxkbZ dk dke ugha gks ldrk jaxdjus ds fy, FkksM+s cM+s vkSj [kqys LFkku dh vko';drk gksrh gSA oknxzLr LFkkuesjs O;olk; gsrq mi;qDr lqfo/kktud vkSj cgqr vPNk jgsxkA D;ksafd Vhu 'ksM gS [kqyhtxg Hkh gS ftlesa jax djus ds i'pkr~ rS;kj eky j[kk tk ldrk gSA**
^^4- ekpZ] 85 ds i'pkr~ ls eSaus izfroknh lsdbZ ckj fdjk;k ekaxk mUgksus vkt nsrk gwa dy nsrk gwa VkyeVwy Hkh dh eSaus jlhnsacukbZ Hkh gS ftl ij izfroknh ds gLrk{kj gSaA ysfdu izfroknh us mu jlhnksa esafy[kk fdjk;k ugha fn;k gS fQj eSaus vius vfHkHkkod ds ek/;e ls uksfVl Hkstk Fkktks izn'kZ ih&2 gSA ftldh iksLVy jlhn izn'kZ ih&3 gS bl uksfVl dkizfroknh us tokc Hkstk nks izn'kZ ih&4 gSA eq>s buds tokc ls ;g ckr ughayxh gS fd izfroknh fdjk;k nsxkA**
^^5- esjs ikl oknxzLr LFkku ls yxh gqbZ [kqn dhekfydh dk vU; dksbZ LFkku ugha gSaA**
^^7- oknxzLr LFkku okyk edku esjs ifr ds firkdk Fkk vkSj mlds ckn muds rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dh 'kkfey feYdh;r dk FkkA esjs nksyM+ds vkSj rhu yM+fd;ka gSA ;g lgh gS fd esjs ifr ds xqtjus ds ckn eSa vkSj esjscPps blds ekfyd gks x;s gSaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd oknxzLr edku esjs ifr dh e`R;q dsckn esjs o esjs cPpksa ds vykok esjs ifr dh HkkbZ;ksa dh feYdh;r dk Hkh gks x;kFkkA esjs ifr vkSj muds HkkbZ;ksa ds chp esjs ifr ds thoudky esa gh gks x;k FkkAcVokjs dh T;knk ckrsa ekSf[kd gqbZ gS dqN fyf[kr esa Hkh gqvk gSA fy[kk i<+hesjs ikl gSA tks ?kj ij gSA eSa is'k dj ldrh gwaA&**
^^9- eSa vius ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn ls LVhyQuhZpj dk O;olk; dj jgha gw eSaus vius ifr ds O;olk; dks gh laHkkyk gSA tgkvktdy gekjk odZ'kkWi gSA ogh esjs ifr ds O;olk; dk odZ'kkWi FkkA Lor% dgk fdjkLrs esa dke djuk iM+rk gSA txg de iM+rh gSA------**
^^eSa QuhZpj dk dkjksckj 'kq: ls vius ifr dsxqtjus ds ckn ls djrh gwaA QuhZpj ds dkjksckj esa vyekjh] dqlhZ] Vsfcy vkfn dkfuekZ.k djkrh gwaA eSa Lo;a Hkh QuhZpj ds fuekZ.k dk dke djrh gwaA o cktkj ls; djokus dk dkjksckj djrh gwaA-----**
^^------ ikVudj cktkj okys LFkku esa txg deiM+rh Fkh blfy, vej iSysl cuk;k vkSj gekjs cPps vthrflag dks lSfVy djuk Fkkblfy, eSaus vej iSysl [kksykA ikVudj cktkj okyk 'kks :e 'kksi ,DV esa esjs ukentZ gSA eSa bl dkjksckj dh izksijkbZVj gwaA igys eSa nqdku ij cSBrh Fkh vc esjkcM+k yM+dk cSBrk gSA tc ls esjk gkVZ vVsd gqvk gS rc ls eSa dsoy pDdj yxkus tkrhgwaA---**
^^;fn lgh gS fd oknxzLr okys iwjs edku esatxnh'k [k.Msyoky ds vykok vU; dksbZ fdjk;snkj ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjsifjokj dh iwjh fjgk;'k ij dh eafty ij gS------ ;g lgh gS fd vius bl edku lsyxh gqbZ lq'khyk xksMokys dh txg eSaus [kjhn yh gS bldh yEckbZ pkSM+kbZ fdruhgksxh eq>s /;ku ughaA ;fn lq'khyk xksMokys ls [kjhns x;s txg dh yEckbZpkSM+kbZ 30~50 gks rks eq>s ;kn ughaA ;g lgh gS fd QuhZpj ij jax cxSjg dk geblh LFkku ij dj jgs gSA-----**
^^---------- lu~ 92 esa eSaus lq'khyk xksMokysdh tehu yh gS rc ls bLrseky dkj[kus gsrq djrh pyh vk jgh gwaA Lor% dgk fdizfroknh us eq>ls dgk Fkk fd ge oknxzLr LFkku [kkyh dj nsaxs vU; LFkku esjsikl Fkk Hkh ughaA**
^^ge [kqys LFkku esa dke djrs Fks yksxksa dksijs'kkuh vkrh Fkh /kwy feV~Vh vkrh Fkh gky esa dke ugha gksrk FkkA ckgj gksrkFkkA ckgj ls esjk vk'k; [ksy ds eSnku ls gSA esjk ugha gS---------**
^^esjk xqtkjk ugha gks jgkA Lor% dgk fd eSagkVZ dh ejht gwa esjh txg [kkyh gks tk;s ;g pkgrh gwaA eSa fdjk;k ugha nsukpkgrh cPps dke djs ;k u djsa cPps ogh ij jax dk dke ds ogha djsaxsA cPpksa dkstxg dh t:jr gS ogha jax dk dke djsaxsA ;k eSa cPpksa ds lkFk uhps cSBdj dj dked:axhA eSa ij ls lkjk dkjksckj ns[krh gwaA dke rks djuk gh iM+rk gS Hkys ghchekjh dh otg ls ,d&nks; fnu jsLV djuk iM+sA**
23. Surendra Singh has been examined as A. W. 2. He has given the same version which was given by A.W. 1. He stated that the disputed premises is bona fide required for them. The relevant paras of his evidence is to the following effect:--
^^fookfnr LFkku yksfg;k cktkj [ksMoj lkgc dkckM+k yksfg;k cktkj esa fLFkr gSA bl Hkou dh ekfyd Jherh dqychj dkSj gSA blesaJh txnh'k pUn [k.Msyoky fdjk;s ls vkckn gSA izfrizkFkhZ dh fdjk;snkjh esa [kqykpkSd o gky ,d rFkk ,d VhulSM gSA izfrizkFkhZ 500@& izfrekg dk fdjk;snkj gSAfooknxzLr LFkku esjh ekrk th ds ikl olh;r ds :i esa vk;k ;g olh;r esjs firkth usdh FkhA olh;rukek izn'kZ ih&5 gSA ftldh QksVks izfr izn'khZ ih&5lh gSAolh;r ij esjs firk th ds , ls ,s esjs firk cyohjflag ds gLrk{kj gSA rFkk cokg ds:i esa usehpUn tSu tks gekjh QeZ ds vdkUVsaV gSA ch ls ch ds gLrk{kj gSA vkSjxqytkj flag ds gLrk{kj lh ls lh gSA esjs ekrkth ds O;olk; dh ns[kHkky ekrkth dslkFk lkFk eSA Hkh djrk gwaA eSa LVhy daiuh ikVudj cktkj okyh nqdku ij cSBrk gwaAesjh ekrkth dks fooknxzLr LFkku dh O;olk; ds fy;s vko';drk gSA ogka ghesa lkekudh vyekfj;ka cxSjg ckgj [kqys eSnku esa tks fd gekjh lEifk ugha gS ogka j[kdjrS;kj djuk iM+rk gS ,oa lkeku mBkdj ckj&ckj; j[kuk iM+rk gSA**-
^^2- vej iSysl okys LFkku ij vthrflag dk 'kks:ecuk gqvk gS vej iSysl ds [kqyus ds ckn Hkh fuek.kZ dk;Z ds fy;s vko';drk gSvyekfj;ksa vkfn ds fuekZ.k ds fy, txg dkQh de iM+rh gSA gesa mudh jaxkbZ [kqyseSnku esa ckgj djuh iM+rh gSA ftlds fy;s gekjs iM+kslh Vksdrs Hkh gSaA esjh ekads ikl O;olk; gsrq oknxzLr LFkku ds vykok vU; dksbZ Lfkku uxj lhek esa miyC/kugha gSA**
^^3- orZeku esa gekjs dkj[kkuk Jherh xksMokysdh txg feykdj yxHkx nks gtkj oxZ QqV esa feykdj py jgk gSA xksMokys dh txg fy;sgq, yxHkx pkj o'kZ gks x;s gSA Lor% dgk fd orZeku esa gesa ;g txg de iM+rhgSA ckgj tks [kqyk eSnku gS ogka j[kdj QuhZpj rS;kj djuk iM+rk gSA tks fd gesalqcg ckgj fudkyuk iM+rk gSA vkSj 'kke dks vUnj j[kuk iM+rk gSA QuhZpj ckgjfudkydj ckgj Hkhrj fudkydj dke djrs gq, gesa nl lky gks x;s gSA-------**
24. Jagdish Chandra Khandelwal, on the other hand examined himself as D.W. 1, and has given the version. Relevant paras of his version is reproduced as below:--
^^------- ;g dguk lgh gS fd izkfFkZuh fookfnrLFkku ds cxy esa QuhZpj dk dke djrh gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkfFkZuh orZeku esa [kqysLFkku ij QuhZpj ij jax djus dk dk;Z djrh gSA Lor% dgk fd og tks LFkku vHkh ;fd;k mlesa djrh gSA eSa ;g ckr ugha crk ldrk fd eSa ftl LFkku dks izkfFkZuh }kjk[kjhnk tkuk crk;k og LFkku izkfFkZuh us dc [kjhnk eSaus ml ; dh gqbZ Hkwfe dkdksbZ nLrkost ugha ns[kk eSaus tqykbZ] 88 rd dk fdjk;k izkFkhZ dks vnkfd;k gSA ,slh dksbZ jlhn izkfFkZuh ds ekaxus ij mUgksus ugha nhA eSa izkfFkZuhls jlhn ekaxus dh rkjh[k ekg o lu~ ugha crk ldrk ysfdu 1985 ds ckn yxkrkj ekaxrkjgkA**
^^eq>s bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS fd vejiSysl okyh txg dqy feykdj 500 oxZQqV txg gS ;k ughaA eq>s bl laca/k esaatkudkjh ugha gS fd izkfFkZuh us lq'khyk xksM+okys ls ;g 25~32 QqV LFkku ;fd;k gS eq>s rks LFkku [kjhnus dk irk gSA dqy fdruh txg [kjhnh eq>s erkughaA lq'khyk xksMokys ls izkfFkZuh us dqy fdruh txg [kjhnh gS bl laca/k esaeSus dksbZ nLrkost ugha ns[kkA esjs ikl ,slk dksbZ nLrkost ugha gSA ftlesa fo|qrO;; fdjk;s dh jkf'k esa 'kkfey gS ,slk vafdr gksaA**
^^eSaus dqyohj dkSj ds O;kikj laca/kh dqydkxtkr ugha ns[ks eSaus muds bude VsDl ds dkxtkr ugha ns[ksA dqyohj dkSj O;kikjdjrh gS ;g ckr lgh gSA eSa ;g ckr tckonkok ns[kdj crk ldrk gwa fd dqyohj dkSjdks O;kikj dk vuqHko ugha gSA rFkk iSls dh deh gSA ;g fdl vk/kkj ij vafdr fd;kgSA**
^^----------- ;g ckr lgh gS fd eSaus viustckonkos esa vuqHko dh deh o /ku dh deh fcuk fdlh nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij fy[kokbZgSA eSaus dqyohj dkSj dks tks 3&4 gtkj oxZ QqV txg gksuk crk;k gSA mldkdksbZ nLrkost ugha ns[kk txg ns[kh gS tgk mudk O;kikj o fuekZ.k gksrk gSA-----------**
25. Thus, it is borne out from the evidence on the record that the landlady/non-applicant wanted eviction of the tenant from the disputed premises for carrying her business, which was left by her husband. As per Ex. P-2, the notice was sent to the tenant, through registered A/d, which was received and replied by him as per Ex. P-4. The landlady in the notice, Ex. P-2 has asserted that the accommodation is bona fide needed for carrying on business. The tenant has given the reply, but he did not specifically deny that the accommodation is not required bona fide. In the reply, he merely asked for furnishing a copy of the Wasiyat. The landlady also stated in the application filed before the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-A of the Act, for eviction of the tenant that the accommodation is bona fide required for carrying on business, which was filed on 28-8-1987. The tenant filed the written-statement on 16-4-90. His defence was denial. He mainly stated in the written-statement that the accommodation is not needed for carrying on business as for that the landlady does not have funds nor she has any experience. He stated therein that the applicant's joint family has another non-residential accommodation available and in that joint business is being carried on. He specially stated by way of amendment in para 17-A to the effect that during the pendency, the applicant/landlady had established Amar Palace Show Room and had also established a Karkhana and because of that the need of the disputed accommodation, if still subsists (which the tenant has denied), that stands extinguished. It is further stated in the written-statement by amendment in the aforesaid para 17 Aa that the landlady has also possessed the land of 4-5 thousand sq.ft., in the disputed premises. Then para 17 Sa is added to the effect that the applicant/landlady in the said suit accommodation hasstarted carrying on furniture business and has opened the Karkhana, as such the need (which the tenant has denied) stands extinguished. The variance in the pleadings is apparent. The evidence has to be appreciated with reference to the pleadings raised by the parties. The applicant/landlady, on one hand, is consistently saying that she needs the accommodation for carrying on business of steel furniture and manufacturing it, but the tenant has given various versions; firstly in the reply to the notice he did not specifically deny, however, thereafter in the written-statement and in his evidence has given varied versions, which are on the record and have been quoted above. The man may lie, but circumstance may not.
26. Thus, on going through the entire material on the record, it is found as a fact that the landlady is bona fide requiring the accommodation in question to satisfy her need, and she has proved the same from the evidence and the material on record. It is noted that the accommodation in question is just adjacent to the residential accommodation of the landlady/widow and thus the same is most reasonably suitable to the landlady from the point of convenience and safety to her and her family members, which are relevant factors and the Court while considering the totality of the circumstances has to keep them in view,
27. This matter has been heard at length. The counsel for the parties read out the evidence repeatedly. As counsel for the applicant stated that there is no legal and reliable evidence, the evidence of the parties has been quoted above in extense.
28. This Court has gone through the entire evidence and the material on record and is of the opinion that the Rent Controlling Authority rightly came to the conclusion, which is based on evidence in the light of surrounding circumstances. It is a settled principle of law that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and he has got a complete freedom in this matter as was observed by the Apex Court in Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, and in the case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., reported in 2000(1) JLJ 186. The provisions of Section 23-D (3) of the Act are very clear which specifically contain that in respect of an application by landlord it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the requirement by the landlord with reference to clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be of Section 23-A is bona fide. So according to this Section, it is for the tenant to prove contrary. While in the case in hand, as noted above, the tenant in his evidence, has admitted that the landlady is doing the business left by her husband and also manufacturing; which shows that requirement of the landlady is bona fide. There is no material available on the record to demolish the genuineness of such a need of the landlady. It is not the case to evict the tenant by any ulterior motive or by way of enhancement of the rent.
29. Taking overall the facts and circumstances into consideration and in view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, in the opinion of thisCourt, the order of eviction passed by the Authority is justified and no interference as such is called for.
30. It is noted that the application was filed by the landlady on 28-7-1987 and the matter remained pending since then. Counsel for the applicant lastly prays for time to evict the premises. Counsel for landlady/non-applicant on the other hand stated that the matter is pending since 1987; about 13 years have passed and the landlady has already suffered.
31. Considering the facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met, if the time upto 31st March, 2001 is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute and handover the vacant peaceful possession to the landlady subject to the following conditions :--
(1) that the applicant/tenant shall file an affidavit to the effect that he is in exclusive possession and none else is in possession of the accommodation in question before the Rent Controlling Authority, within one month from today;
(2) that the tenant shall deposit all arrears of rent if any, within one month from today and he shall continue to deposit monthly rent till the accommodation is vacated.
(3) that the applicant/tenant shall furnish an undertaking duly supported by an affidavit to the effect that he shall vacate the premises in dispute and handover the vacant peaceful possession on or before 31st of March, 2001, to the landlady.
(4) that if the undertaking is not complied with and the accommodation, as directed above, is not vacated within the specified time then in that situation, the eviction order passed by the Authority shall remain in force and will be executable in accordance with the law and the applicant/tenant may be proceeded with for the disobedience of the order of this Court, apart from other proceedings.
32. In view of what has been stated above, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs.
33. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-.
34. Civil Revision dismissed.