(1.) THE non -applicant Smt. Leela Deshpande, claiming to be landlord in relation to the applicant filed an application u/s 23 -A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 before the Rent Controlling Authority burg, seeking eviction of the applicant from the tenanted premises on the ground of its bonafide requirement. The applicant on receipt of the notice filed an application seeking leave of the Court to defend the action on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore the claim was not maintainable. It was also submitted that the applicant had taken the premises on rent from Shri D. P. Deshpande and was paying rent to him. It was also submitted that even otherwise, the so -called need of the non -applicant was neither genuine nor bonafide. The non -applicant objected to the grant of leave to defend on the ground that the applicant is raising un -necessary issues. The learned Authority was of the opinion that the house was a joint family property and was given on rent to the applicant by Shri D. P. Deshpande because the said Shri Deshpande had the authority from other members of the joint family to so let out it. The learned Authority was also of the opinion that in the partition effected in the year. 1990, the said property has fallen to the share of the non -applicant. The Authority, therefore, held that the issues sought to be raised by the applicant are wholly unnecessary. On such a finding, the application for defending the action was rejected and the impugned order of eviction passed. It is this order which is impugned in the present civil revision.
(2.) IT is well settled that the purpose of granting leave to defend in an action like the present one is to avoid unnecessary and frivolous litigations and thereby permit prompt disposal of the case. This provision is not intended to deny the tenant a reasonable opportunity to defend the action. Indeed, passing of an eviction order without giving an opportunity to the tenant to raise bonafide defence would be shocking to judicial conscience. Under the circumstances, the Rent Controlling Authority has to exercise its mind in the matter and see that as far as possible, a reasonable opportunity of defence is afforded to the tenant. This is true that the tenant raises triable issues which find support from the pleadings of the land -lord himself. In the instant case, it was admitted that the non -applicant -landlord has not let out the tenanted premises to the applicant -tenant. It is also admitted that the applicant was inducted into the premises by Shri D. P. Deshpande who is the younger brother of the husband of the non -applicant. It is also admitted that the said Shri Deshpande had received the rent from the applicant. In such a situation, the question whether Shri D. P. Deshpande acted on his own or on behalf of the entire family would be a subject -matter of enquiry. Such an enquiry would also be necessary in the interest of justice as the result of the enquiry, if it be in favour of the applicant, would be sufficient to dispose of the application by holding that the relationship of land -lord and tenant does not exist between the parties. Such a plea cannot be said to be unresonable or unjustified. Since this plea has its basis in the application filed by the non -applicant herself, it deserves investigation. The plea that the tenanted premises was not required bonafide by the non -applicant also appears to be fully justified and permission deserves to be granted to raise the same. The non -applicant is an aged lady belonging to a respectable family. There is nothing on record to indicate that she has done any business any time anywhere. If in such a situation, the applicant -tenant wishes to submit that the need is not real and genuine, such a defence cannot be denied to her. Apparently therefore, the basis for such a defence exists in the facts appearing in the application and in other material itself. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid defences were substantial and deserve to be allowed in the wider interest of justice.
(3.) IN view of the discussion aforesaid, the revision succeeds. The impugned order dated 29.11. 91 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority is hereby set aside. The application of the applicant seeking permission to defend the action is partly allowed to the extent as mentioned above. The applicant will be entitled to file written statement incorporating those pleas and thereafter the matter will be proceeded in accordance with law.