No.3 a 4 th.rouoh theii" naturai auardian mother Avesha Bano v. Appiicant)

Present: Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate^or the oppiicants. Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.l. Mr. Vinod Tekam, P.L. for the respondent No.2/State. (03.10.2012)

Heard on I.A. No.2, for condonation of detay in filing the instant revision as the same has been preferred with a delay of 20 days.

As per submissions, initiaily the cpplicants have filed on appea! before the court beiow and thereafter an appeal before this Court and Then The instant revision has been filed.

Therefore, considering the factum of filing appeats before wrong forums and period spent in such proceedings, I.A. No.2 is allowed. Delay in filing •t+ie instant revision is hereby condoned.

By this revision the cypticants have cha\\enged the legality and propriety of the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the District Judge, Kanker in Misc. Civil Appeal No.02/2012 affirming the order dated 15.2.2012 passed by 1+ie Rent Controtling Au-t+iorit/ Konker in Revenue Case No.Ol/A-90/2010-11.

At the outset, learned counse! for the appiicants submits that The present applicant No.l is not related to Late Mohammed Annees and the appticant No.l and the applicants No.2 to 4 are separate tenants havina their separate entity. They were enjoying their tenanted accommodation individuaily witiiout there being any interruption by each oltier. The '•.•^•-Su, ^ -^ ^^?^.. '3sasyse9 y 'si •9 Page2 of2 C^ii^l P?li"<?inn Mr> t'^1^ respondent No.l has fiied one application tor eviction of two ditferent tenants, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed at the outset by the authority concerned on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action and the parties. He further submits that although presumption of bonnfide need is available to the respondent No.l under SecTion 23A (3) of The C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961') but presumption is rebuttal and 1+ie respondent No.l is still under an obiigation to prove his bonafide need, but reasons best known to him he has neither pieaded nor proved such need for his sons. Even he has not aileged or pleaded the buainess which his sons would carry and in absence of such evidence and on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action of the parties, the Rent Controliing Authoriry wouid have dismissed the application. 6; On the other hond, learned counsel for the respondent No.l opposed the petition and submits that the Rent Controiiing Authority has rightly passed the order impugned.

As per record, eyidence, application and the order impugned, applicaint No.l dnd the applicants No.2 to 4 are not joint tenants or successors in interest. They are running their business entirely in different part of tenanted accommodation. The resDondent No.l has neither deposed nor pleaded requirement of his sons that what business his sons wouid carry. In these circumstoinces, the Rent ConTroiling Authorit/ would not have passed the order impugned.

Consequentty, the revision is aiiowed, the order impugned passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is hereby set aside and since the application for eviction is filed by the special category of landtord under Section 23A of 1+ie Act of 1961, the matter is remitted to the Rent Controlling Authority, Rajnondgaon to take decision afresh after issuing notice to the parties ond providing opportunity of the respondent No.l to correct the application for eviction. No order as to costs.

Certified copy as per ruies. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge K