ORDER
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This revision application has been preferred against the order dated 10-1-2003 passed by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur in Case No. 60/A-90 (7)/2000, directing thereby eviction of the revisionist.
2. Admitted facts of the case are that the shop in question is comprised in a property which was purchased by applicant Smt. Gumana Bai vide registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989 and has been occupied by the non-appli-cant/Revisionist as a tenant.
3. Smt. Gumana Bai as a landlady submitted an application under Section 23-A (b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) for eviction of the revisionist on the ground that she needed the disputed shop for starting of business by Sajal and Prabhat who happen to be the grand sons of her brother-in-law. The disputed property is stated to have been purchased by her vide registered sale deed 6th of February, 1989. The shop in question has been in the occupation of the non-applicant/revisionist as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month as rent. It is further averred in the application for eviction that neither she nor the aforesaid grand sons have any other alternative accommodation of non-residential character in vacant condition. It has been expressly and specifically pleaded in the application for eviction that the applicant is issueless and out of love and affection she has great affection with the father of Sajal and Prabhat and after the birth of Shri Sajal and Prabhat, she orally undertook to bear the responsibility and accordingly she is looking after both Sajal and Prabhat from all corners and feels her moral responsibility to settle them in business and therefore she requires the suit accommodation for the business of Shri Sajal and Prabhat. Thus, eviction of the non-applicant/revisionist has been sought or bona fide requirement under Section 23-A (b) of the Act.
4. The non-applicant/revisionist obtained leave to contest from the learned Rent Controlling Authority on 7-8-01. Written statement was duly submitted denying the claim of the applicant. It has been inter alia contended that the alleged need of grand-sons of the original applicant did not fall within the ambit of Section 23-A (b) of the Act. It has been specifically denied by the revisionist that Sajal and Prabhat are dependent on the original applicant. On the contrary, it has been averred that they are living with their natural parents and are dependent of them. It has been further averred that parents of Sajal and Prabhat own various properties including two big houses bearing Nos. 123 and 124 and a shop bearing No. 42-as situated at Kings Way Road, Sadar, Jabalpur is also lying vacant which is in possession of applicant as well as Sajal and Prabhat. Apart from this, another building bearing No. 130 having area of 200 sq. feet is also owned by Sajal and Prabhat and their father in joint manner which is available for the alleged business.
5. The Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur after recording evidence allowed the application for eviction and directed the non-applicant/revisionist to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the disputed shop within a period of two months to the applicant. The non-applicant is also held entitled to be compensated under Section 23-G (2) of the Act.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the non-applicant/revisionist has preferred the present revision application.
7. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel raised the following two points:
(i) The suit premises was owned by Smt. Gumana Bai who was not holding it for benefit of Sajal and Prabhat whose need has been projected. In view of this, it has been contended that the eviction cannot be ordered for the need of aforesaid two grand sons of brother-in-law of Gumana Bai.
(ii) The alternative accommodation has been suppressed by the applicant and the same being available in vacant condition the order of eviction is not sustainable in law.
8. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Sr. Counsel forcefully contended that Gumana Bai had lost her husband and had no child. Thus, she will be deemed to have held the suit premises for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat. It has been further contended that Smt. Gumana Bai died during the pendency of the present civil revision and Sajal and Prabhat have been substituted in her place as Legal Representatives. In view of this, it has been contended that the order of eviction deserves to be maintained.
9. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
10. The application for eviction has been submitted under Section 23-A (b) of the Act which reads as under:
23-A. (b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required 'bona fide'by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned:
A bare look on the provision makes it clear that a landlord specified under Section 23-J of the said Act may seek eviction of tenant from non-residential accommodation under the aforesaid provision in case, if the premises is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if landlord is the owner of the tenanted premises. This provision further makes it clear that in case, if the landlord specified under Section 23-J of the Act, is holding the accommodation for the benefit of any other person then, eviction may be sought, if it is required bona fide by landlord for such person. Further, eviction may be ordered only, in case, if there is no reasonably suitable, self owned alternative non-residential accommodation in vacant condition in the city or town concerned.
11. The crucial question in this case is what is meant by the words 'for whose benefit accommodation is held'. Former portion of Section 23-A (b) deals with the situation when the landlord of specified category is owner of the premises. Later portion deals with the situation when the landlord requires bona fide the premises for a person for whose benefit the accommodation is held. Holding of accommodation in the later portion is in contradistinction to the concept of ownership which is dealt with in the earlier portion of the provision. Meaning of the word 'to hold' in contradistinction to ownership is 'to possess an accommodation for the purpose for administration'. The word 'to hold' has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as 'to be in possession and administration of'.
12. In the present case, the applicant Gumana Bai was the owner of the suit premise on the strength of registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989. It has been categorically mentioned in the application under Section 23-A (b) of the Act that she purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989 and informed orally the non-applicant about the sale deed and asked him to pay the rent to the applicant as his landlady. Accordingly, the non-applicant paid the rent. Since then the non-applicant is tenant of the applicant. Had the disputed accommodation been held for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat, Smt. Gumana Bai would have asked the non-applicant to pay the rent either to them directly or for their benefit. The photocopy of the sale deed is on record as Ex. P-2/c which goes to show that Smt. Gumana Bai alone was described as purchaser of the suit premises. There is absolutely no whisper in Ex. P-2/c that the suit premises was purchased by Gumana Bai for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat. It has not been stated as the family property and there is no iota on record to treat the same as a family property comprising of Gumana Bai, Sajal and Prabhat. From the pedigree available on record, it is clear that Gumana Bai was wile of one Ratan Chand whereas Sajal and Prabhat are grandsons of brother of Ratan Chand. By virtue of Ex. P-2/c the subject premises is owned by Gumana Bai in her individual capacity and by no stretch of imagination she can be treated to have held the property for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat. Moreover, there is no specific averment in the application for eviction that Smt. Gumana Bai held the disputed property for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat. The relevant averment has been made in the application under Section 23-A (b) of the Act which has been added by way of amendment to the following effect:
That the application is issueless and out of love and affection she has great affection with the father of Sajal and Prabhat and after the birth of Shri Sajal and Prabhat, she orally undertook to bear the responsibility and accordingly she is looking after both Sajal and Prabhat from all corners and feels her moral responsibility to settle them in business and therefore she requires the suit accommodation for the business of Shri Sajal and Prabhat. Applicant is partner of M/s. Vaibhav and receives ample share from the profits and is able to maintain Shri Sajal and Prabhat.
13. The aforesaid averment cannot be construed so as to mean that the subject premises was held by Smt. Gumana Bai for the benefit Sajal and Prabhat. If the applicant meant to suggest something in deviation of the registered sale deed dated 6th of February, 1989, it was obligatory on her part to plead specifically that the subject premise was held by her for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat. In the absence of necessary averment and proof it cannot be accepted that Smt. Gumana Bai held the subject premises for the benefit of Sajal and Prabhat. Consequently, it is to be held that provision of Section 23-A (b) of the Act could not have been invoked by Smt. Gumana Bai for eviction on the ground of alleged bona fide requirement of Sajal and Prabhat.
14. Accordingly, the revision shall have to be allowed and is hereby, allowed. Since this Court has held that the ground of eviction under Section 23-A (b) of the said Act is not available to Smt. Gumana Bai, this Court does not feel it necessary to enter into the second question mentioned herein above.
15. Shri Bhave, learned Sr. Counsel further contended that Smt. Gumana Bai having died during the pendency of the Civil Revision, her legal representatives may be permitted to continue with the application for eviction. Reliance placed by Shri Bhave, learned Senior Counsel on the decision of this Court reported as 1990 MPJR 517, Neman v. L.Rs. of Smt. Ansuyiya Bai is of no assistance because in the case of Narain (supra), this Court held that the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority was a valid one. In the present case, it has been held that the provisions of Section 23-A (b) of the Act did not get attracted before the Rent Controlling Authority. Decision of this Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. Joseph and Anr., reported as 1999 (II) MPJR 19, cited by Shri Raveesh Agrawal, Senior Advocate is also equally of no assistance because in that case the death of the landlord falling in the specified category occurred during the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority himself and in the present case, Smt. Gumana Bai was alive till the order was passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and the decision of Santosh Kumar (supra), is found to have no applicability. Anyway, the provision of Section 23-A (b) of the Act has already been found to be inapplicable. It is observed that the respondents who have been substituted in place of Smt. Gumana Bai do not fall within the category of landlords specified under Section 2-J of the Act. They shall have to file a suit under Section 12 of the said Act, if so advised.
16. In the result, revision application succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority is hereby set aside and application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act submitted by Smt. Gumana Bai stands dismissed. No order as to costs.