ANAND PATHAK,J. - (1.)The Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed at the instance of petitioner/defendant/tenant against the order dated 29/09/2017 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior in Case No.03/2006-2007/90-7.
(2.)Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is tenant of respondent. Respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act before the Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) taking the plea that she is the owner of the property, description of which is mentioned in the impugned order. It was further stated that the said property came in share of her husband in partition. Petitioner/defendant is the tenant @1000/- per month in the shop of respondent/landlord's ownership. Respondent filed the application for vacation of the suit shop taking the ground of bona fide requirement as she is widow and for running the business of tailoring she requires the suit shop. In the application, she categorically mentioned that though she has two other shops of her ownership but those are very small and not suitable for starting the business.
(3.)Petitioner/tenant by taking permission to defend the case, filed written statement in which valuation of the application has been denied and it was stated that at the time of taking the suit shop on rent, Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited as advance with Ramesh Sharma, who was the actual owner of the shop and was the brother-in-law of the respondent. Petitioner/tenant also denied the plea regarding bona fide requirement of respondent/landlord by stating that near the suit shop, two other shops (Lawania Tailor and Bhargav Paint House) got vacated during the pendency of the case and no business has been started by the respondent/landlord in those shops rather she has rented out those shops to other persons, therefore, no bona fide requirement exists to the respondent. Just to get higher rent of the suit shop she has filed application for eviction against the petitioner/tenant.