JUDGMENT
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This revision application is submitted under Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act by the tenant/revisionist against an order dated 3-7-2004 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur.
2. Short facts leading to the case are that the landlady submitted an application under Section 23(A) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction of the revisionist. She stated that the revisionist is a tenant @ Rs. 500/- per month under an oral tenancy. The landlady is a widow having lost her husband in the year 1 995. It is further stated that the landlady is aged and finding it difficult to reside alone since last 21/2 years. Due to this the younger daughter of the landlady has started residing with her in order to take her care. Her this younger daughter is married and is residing with landlady along with her husband and two children. It is further stated that the landlady has only two rooms and one kitchen in her occupation and are insufficient for the residence. The revisionist admitted the tenancy but opposed the claim of bonafide need as pleaded by the respondent/landlady.
3. Learned R.C.A. vide his order dated 3-7-2004 found that the need of the respondent is bonafide and she has no other vacant residential accommodation of her own in the city of Jabalpur, so he passed an order for ejectment of the revisionist. Hence the revision.
4. Shri Sanghi, learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent had failed to prove that she is unwell and needs company of her daughter for her own care. He further submitted that the need of married daughter is not covered by the provisions of Section 23(A) (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act and no ejectment can be directed on this ground. Moreover, her daughter was also not examined by the respondent.
5. Learned Counsel further submitted that according to the evidence on record, the respondent has other alternative vacant residential accommodations with her and no eviction order could have been legally passed. Shri R.P. Khare, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. It be seen that the respondent in Paragraph 3 of her statement had clearly stated that she is old and is not well. She had further stated that her younger daughter resides with her in order to take her care. It is further stated that the younger daughter with her husband and two children reside with the respondent in two rooms situated on the ground floor. She further stated that the accommodation occupied by them is highly insufficient. The revisionist has not chosen to cross-examine the respondent on the point of her ill health. So, in the absence of cross-examination on this point, the statement of the respondent about her ill health will be deemed to be admitted to the revisionist. The revisionist has admitted in her cross examination that the younger daughter of the respondent is residing with her. No alternative vacant residential premises has been shown even by the revisionist in her statement. In view of this, the findings of the learned RCA can not be said to be incorrect. As regards the objection of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the ejectment can not be sought on the ground of need of married daughter. It be seen that the case of the respondent is that she on account of her old age and ill health need company of her daughter who is required to and in fact takes care of the health of her ill mother. The application for ejectment in this manner is not based on the ground of bonafide need for married daughter, but the same is based on the right of landlady to live conveniently and comfortably in the company of her daughter which is a demand of the time due to old age and ill health of the mother. Thus, the objection of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is misconceived and is rejected hereby.
8. As regards the non-examination of the daughter, it is suffice to point out that the revisionist herself has admitted that the younger daughter of the respondent is residing with her. In view of this admission of the revisionist, no adverse effect can be inferred on account of non-examination of the daughter.
9. In the result, the findings of the learned R.C.A. are not found to have suffered from any factual or legal infirmity. Accordingly, the revision application is found meritless and is dismissed. However, without order as to costs.