ORDER
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This is a revision arising out of the order of learned R.C.A., Gwalior in Case No. 44/85-86/90/7. Before enterinto the controversy involved in the suit, I feel it apt to consider few things regarding the proceedings before the RCA and their maintenance.
2. Rent Controlling Authority is appointed by the Collector with previous approval of the State Government under the provisions of Section 28 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Such an officer should not be below the rank of Deputy Collector. The powers of appointment are conferred on the Collector for the area within his jurisdiction to which the said Act applies. After insertion of chapter III-A w.e.f. 16-8-1983, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority has acquired a tremendous importance because in certain cases with respect to the specified category of landlords defined under Section 23-J of the said Act, the Rent Controlling Authority has exclusive jurisdiction and no appeal is provided against his order. It is only a revision which is provided in Section 23-E of the said Act that, too, before this Court. A proceeding before the Rent Controlling Authority is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of IPC and the R.C.A. is a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of Cr.PC. Thus, the status of Civil Court is conferred upon the RCA for certain purposes. Similarly, the Rent Controlling Authority is invested with the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the CPC in respect of certain matters enumerated in Section 29 of the said Act. Thus, the RCA discharges an important function and is expected to act with all seriousness and gravity.
3. On perusal of the record of RCA, I find that in certain order-sheets, it is not clearly mentioned as to for what purpose the case has been fixed. This may lead to a confusing state of affairs. The RCA is expected and required to specify a particular purpose for which the case is fixed for the next date. Second thing which I find in the record of the RCA is that the pleadings and evidence are not maintained in an orderly manner. Pleadings are the foundation which gives a basis to the RCA to focus upon the controversy involved between the parties and decide it in accordance with law. The application for ejectment along with its map are contained at page Nos. 1 to 4 whereas the reply on merits to the said application are contained at page 16 of the file. In between there are documents with index and the application for seeking leave under Section 23-C of the said Act along with the affidavit in support of it. It may be noticed that once the leave to contest is granted, such application normally looses it significance. So, after the grant of leave to defend, the reply of the application for eviction on merits may immediately follow the application for ejectment itself. Similarly, 1 found that the documentary and oral evidence is not available in the file in an orderly manner. The statements of the different witnesses including those of the parties to proceedings are at scattered position in the file. Even in between the sheets containing the statement of a panicular witness, certain other documents or applications are found to have been tagged. For example, the statement of Dewki Bai started at page No. 287 and continued at page No. 288. Her further statement is found at page Nos. 298, 299 and 300. It further continued at page No. 305. In between other applications and documents and even the statement of another witness, namely Hiralal are tagged in the file. Thus, the file of RCA is not found to have been arranged in a systematic manner. This may occasion into omission of the statement from being considered which may prejudice the case of the either party. Moreover, the scattered statements in the file may reduce the efficiency of the RC-A. In Order 10 avoid it, ii would perhaps be proper for the RCA to maintain the documentary evidence followed by the oral evidence and the same may be tagged in the file immediately after the issues framed by the RCA. The documents of the respondent and his oral evidence shall follow the documentary and oral evidence of the applicant. Third, irregularity which I find in the file is that the numbering of paragraphs in the statements has not been made by the RCA. This at times creates problem at the time of arguments when the Advocate is expected and required to refer to a specific piece of evidence contained in the statement. Thus, RCA is expected and required to put the paragraph numbers in the statements of the witnesses. This also will increase the quality and efficiency of the learned RCA I am informed at Bar that Exhibited documents at times aie returned to the concerning parties without retaining their certified copies on record. If at all this is so, it is highly irregular and impermissible. The RCA may be guided in this matter by the provisions of Order 13 Rule 9. CPC and return the original document only after retaining its certified copy on record. The RCA may also seek guidance from the Civil Court rules with regard to maintenance of file and shall pass necessary instructions to his Reader for maintaining the file in proper order.
4. Now coming to the case in hand, relevant facts leading to the revision application are required to be mentioned herein.
5. The original applicant namely Bhoga Bai submitted an application for eviction under Section 23-A (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the revisionist for ejectment from the suit shop situated at Chums Ki Goth, Lashkar, Gwalior. She pleaded that the non-appiicant/revisionisi is a tenant in the disputed shop on monthly rent @ Rs. 150/- under an oral tenancy since May, 1984. The rent was stated to be due w.e.f. 1 -7-1984. She stated herself to be widow and unemployed and claimed eviction on the ground that the disputed shop is required for the business of fireworks and crackers of herself and her major unemployed sons. She pleaded that she had no vacant suitable non-residential accommodation of her own in the city of Gwalior.
6. The non-applicant/revisionist after obtaining the requisite leave to contest under Section 23-C of the said Act submitted his detailed reply denying the claim of the applicant. He inter alia stated that he is not a tenant of Bhoga Bai, but he is a tenant of her son Gopal Das @ Rs. 100/- per month. He refuted the alleged bonafide need and stated that the applicant and one of her sons, Dayal Das is not physically capable of doing business. Another son, namely, Gopal Das is running his own business of fireworks and crackers in his own premises. The third son Dwarka Prasad was running a business of electrical appliances and decoration in the name of 'Dwarka Sound and Decorator'. Moreover, there is one more son, namely Ayodhya Prasad of the applicant and the shop occupied by him was vacated and let out to one M/s. Western Tailors. The tenant, thus, prayed for dismissal of the application for eviction.
7. During the pendency of the application for eviction, Bhoga Bai died on 16-3-1996 and the present respondents were brought on record before the RCA. The application for eviction was amended and need for eviction was projected for Dewki Bai, the daughter of Bhoga Bai who happened to be a widow. It was stated by amendment that Dewki Bai was married to one Sone Ram and after the death of husband, Dewki Bai was ousted from the property of the family of her husband and the entire property was sold by the elder brother of Sone Ram.
8. The revisionist also amended his reply and stated that the Shop occupied earlier by M/s. Western Tailors has been vacated in the year 1988 and is lying vacant. He further stated that the shop occupied by Bhoga Bai for her business of fireworks is also lying vacant after her death. He refuted the averment that the premises occupied earlier by Bhoga Bai for the alleged fireworks business is in occupation of Sita Ram for residential use. The revisionist further stated that Dewki Bai owns a big house at Nai Sadak, Gwalior which comprised of various vacant shops.
9. Learned RCA after recording the evidence allowed the application for eviction holding that Dewki Bai requires bonafide the dispute shop for her business and she has no alternative accommodation of her own within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
10. Aggrieved by the same, present revision application has been preferred.
Both the learned Counsels made their submissions. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
11. Shri A.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that his client was tenant of Gopal Das and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. It be seen that the revisionist in Paragraph 5 of his statement has admitted that Bhoga Bai had earlier instituted a suit against him in the and the relationship of landlord and tenant between Bhoga Bai and him was found to be proved. The revisionist has further admitted that he did not prefer appeal because the judgment was proper. In Paragraph 1 of his statement the defendant has admitted that he used to pay rent to Bhoga Bai. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is not liable to be accepted.
On the contrary, since the relationship of landlord and tenant between Bhoga Bai and the present revisionist found to be proved, consequent to death of Bhoga Bai, her legal heirs became the landlords/owners of the suit property which included Dewki Bai. In this view of the mater, Dewki Bai is found to be one of the co-owners and is entitled to seek eviction of the revisionist from the suit shop. Thus, the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is hereby rejected.
12. Shri A.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel further submitted that on account of the alleged partition, Dewki Bai was not competent to seek eviction on the ground of her personal need because no share was allotted to her. It be seen that the partition between few of the co-owners will not divest an absentee co-owner of her title in the property. Moreover, the brother of Dewki Bai has himself appeared in the witness box and has stated on oath that the suit shop was kept reserved for the business of Dewki Bai. It is true that no division is shown to have effected by registered partition deed and the effect of the same would be that all the non-residential accommodations left by Bhoga Bai are liable to be taken into consideration to determine the bonafide need of Dewki Bai.
13. Shri A.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel further submitted that Dewki Bai has no licence to run the business of fireworks. It may be seen that the applicants of the tenants have categorically admitted that the family business of the family of applicants/respondents has been the business of fireworks. Thus, the alleged need of Dewki Bai to open a business of fireworks can very well be considered even in the absence of any licence. One more reason is that a person ( after having obtained a vacant non-residential premises may apply to open the business of fireworks by obtaining the requisite licence. Moreover, the business of fireworks may include the sale of raw material required for the business of fireworks. Thus, it is not obligatory on the part of Dewki Bai to have a licence of fireworks before submitting the application for eviction which may be obtained subsequently if she is put into vacant possession of the suit shop. Obviously, a business which requires licence may not be allowed to be opened and/or continued without licence. But, this is a job of the administration and the application for eviction can not be dismissed merely on the ground that the person seeking eviction is not in possession of the requisite licence. Similarly, funds and preparation of the proposed business are not the pre- requisites for grant of eviction.
14. Shri A.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel further submits that Dewki Bai has alternative shops and the need projected by her is neither real nor bonafide. He referred to the various pieces of evidence and contended that various vacant shops are proved to be available to Dewki Bai.
Learned R.C.A. has discussed the evidence and has concluded that no alternative shop is available with the applicants for the purpose of business of Dewki Bai. This Court also gave anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist in Paragraph 9 has stated that there are in all three pucca shops. One is occupied by revisionist himself and is the subject matter of the present case. As regards other shops, they are occupied by the brothers of Dewki Bai. One premises which was occupied by Bhoga Bai for her business as well as residence is proved to be in use for residential purpose. The revisionist has also admitted in Paragraph 9 that it is correct to say that the said premises is in the use for residence after the death of Bhoga Bai. In Paragraph 10 of her statement Dewki Bai has also confirmed that the premises falling vacant on account of death of Bhoga Bai has been occupied by Sita Ram for residence.
As regards, the premises vacated by M/s Western Tailors, it may be seen that it was in the nature of temporary partition and the same was occupied by Ayodhya Prasad after its vacation by M/s Western Tailors. A landlord has a choice to use the premises according to his own need and he can not be compelled not to convert a non-residential premises into a residential one by residing in a squeezed manner. Moreover, there is a way from inside for the remaining house and thus, the portion earlier occupied by Bhoga Bai can not be treated as an alternative accommodation.
15. Shri A.K. Agrawal, learned Counsel further submitted that the shop vacated by M/s Western Tailors is also available. From the record, it is clear that M/s Western Tailors has already vacated the premises and the same has been included in the shop of Ayodhya Prasad.
16. Lastly, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that Dewki Bai was married and the property belonging to her husband's family was situated at Nai Sadak, Gwalior and there were certain vacant shops in the said property. According to the learned Counsel the application for eviction can not be allowed without taking into consideration the said property. It is seen from the record that Dewki Bai was ousted by her in-laws and the property was already sold by them. Dewki Bai is not shown to be in possession to exercise domination with respect to the property situated at Nai Sadak. Moreover, a sale has also bee effected in respect of it. Thus, the revisionist has failed to establish that Dewki Bai has an alternative non-residential vacant accommodation in her own possession. In the absence of such proof, Dewki Bai is not proved to have any alternative non-residential vacant accommodation in the city of Gwalior and the finding of learned RCA in this respect is hereby confirmed.
17. After going through the evidence, I find that there is no infirmity in the findings of the learned RCA and the impugned order does not call for any kind of interference. In the result, the revision application is dismissed, however, without order as to costs.
Copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Gwalior for issuance of necessary instruction in pursuance to the observations/directions contained in Paragraph Nos. 1 to 3 of this order.