ORDER
P.C. Agrawal, J.
1. This is a revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act for short) challenging the order of Rent Controlling Authority (R.C. A. for short) dated 12-12-2002 in case No. A-90 (7) 43/01 (Smt. Kamla Bai v. Sita Bai and 2 others) in which petitioners are ordered to vacate the disputed 3 rooms with an otla in front. Ground taken had been bonafide requirement for non-residential purpose of Ku. Alka Shukla (AW-2) a major daughter of the non-applicant, widow (landlady) falling within the definition of special category of landlords as defined under Section 23-J of the Act.
2. The learned Advocate for petitioners has argued that admittedly the disputed rooms were let out for residential purpose and without express consent of the non-applicant (landlady) the same were used wholly or partly for non-residential purpose and thus as an effect of explanation to Section 23-A (a) of the Act the disputed shops could be got vacated only for residential need of the non-applicant and not for non-residential need.
B. The non-applicant had not proved that she is an owner of the disputed
rooms and without such proof she was not entitled for eviction under either
Clause (a) or (b) of Section 23-A of the Act. Sheela v. Firm Prahland Rai
Prem Prakash, 2002 (2) M.P.H.T. 232 (SC) = AIR 2002 SC 1264 has been cited
in support.
C. The non-applicant after decision from the Supreme Court had obtained vacant possession of some rooms which she had not disclosed and has not shown in what way the same are not sufficient to satisfy the need of the non-applicant and thus, absence of alternative accommodation has not been established.
3. Point A– Explanation to Section 23-A of the Act was only inclusive and enabling. Here as per pleadings the petitioners-tenants had themselves changed the user of the disputed rooms and the non-applicant or her predecessor had continued to take rent for the same it could not be said that the” petitioners-tenants had changed such user without knowledge or consent of the non-applicant nor could they be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong in changing the user in breach of conditions of tenancy agreement. Total object of the provision has been merely that even if the tenant changes the user of the accommodation without consent of the landlord from residential to non-residential purpose the landlord can still claim possession thereof for his residential requirement and is not required to prove his need for non-residential purpose. As per written statement of the petitioners themselves, the disputed room were being used for composite purpose of both residence and non-residence. No water tight division between residential or non-residential accommodations had been created under Section 23-A of the Act. In such a situation the eviction of the petitioners for non-residential requirement of major daughter of the non-applicant could not have been said to be erroneous.
4. Point B– Certainly, as per pleadings of the parties, the non-applicant, was landlady and the co-owner of the disputed rooms. It is well settled that a landlord and co-owner can file an application under Section 23-A of the Act if other co-owners do not object to it. Harbans Singh v. Margrat G. Bhingardive, AIR 1990 MP 191 (FB) is one of the authorities on the point which holds the field. Certainly, it was a proceeding between the landlady and tenant and the question of title was not germane in the same and in view of the pleadings of the parties and admission it was not necessary to prove the title of non-applicant strictly as has been laid down in Sheela’s case cited (supra). Admissions in pleadings or otherwise by the parties were sufficient to prove the ownership of the non-applicant.
5. Point C– Certainly, in Para 1 of Page 5 of the application, the non-applicant had explained that she is using her rooms for her business of Hotel. In Para 2 she had explained how she is going to use the house No. 192/12 for business of her son on its vacation. She has explained how the same is not suitable for her major daughter Ku. Alka Shukla (A. W. 2) who being a woman needs protection from the non-applicant. Certainly, it is well established that choice of landlord has to be respected. He is the best Judge of his requirements. He cannot be forced to eject other tenants from accommodations already in their possession. Siddalingamma v. Mantha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561, Jagdish Chandra Khandelwal v. Kulveer Kaur (Smt.), 2001 (3) M.P.H.T.418 -2001 (2) MPJR – SN 37 can usefully be cited in this reference.
6. Bonafide requirement for start of business for Ku. Alka Shukla (A.W. 2) has been proved form the statements of Kamla Bai (A.W. 1) and Ku. Alka Shukla (A.W. 2) herself. The petitioners had examined Omprakash (N.A.W. 1), Bhanwarlal (N.A.W. 2) and Mandanlal Khandelwal (N.A.W. 3) in their defence. The learned R.C.A. after appreciation of all the evidences had come to the finding that the non-applicant required the disputed shops for starting business of her daughter Ku. Alka Shukla (A.W. 2) and she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation within the town of Indore. Such a finding is finding of fact. Nothing could be shown to infer that the conclusions drawn by R.C. A., are either perverse or arbitrary or not based of evidence on record. Thus, no interference is warranted. Revision is dismissed.
7. However, looking to all the circumstances of the case, time is granted to the petitioners for vacating the disputed premises till March 31st, 2004 on their furnishing an usual undertaking within two weeks from today.