Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner denied the pleadings of landlady and submitted that her need was not bonafide, she had sufficient accommodation, earlier also she filed an eviction suit which was dismissed in default. It shows that she had no genuine need and prayed for dismissal of the eviction application.

4. On the pleading of both the parties the authority framed issues with regard to bonafide need of applicant and her family members and availability of alternate accommodation and weather provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code are attracted in the proceedings. After analysing the evidence, pleadings documents on record of the case the Authority has held that bonafide need of the applicant and her family members are genuine, she had no other alternate accommodation at Indore city for aforesaid purpose and provisions of Order 9 Rule 9, CPC are not attracted and passed an order of eviction in favour of landlady.

6. He further contended that landlady filed a eviction suit in 1985 against the petitioner which was dismissed on 13-12-2000 in non-appearance and again she filed the present application in August, 2001 which shows that she had no bonafide need and the order of the Authority is not a speaking one he only reproduce the evidence and did not decide anything and relied on AIR 1981 SC 1711.

7. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that order of the Authority is as per law based on evidence with reasons and can not be interfered in a revision, with regard to bonafide need a power of attorney holder who is a member of family son can depose on behalf of the landlady who was aged 80 years. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is distinguishable because it was passed on the basis of deposition of power of attorney holder in a suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal about transactions made by the executor of power of attorney holder. He relied on 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 280, 2004(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 115, 1994 (1) MPJR 144, 1995 II MPWN (43), 1995(2) MPLJ 410, AIR 1993 SC 1574 with regard to bonafide need he submitted that the landlady can not be forced to live in one room without her family members at the fag end of her life, it would amount to a cruelty, for this contention he relied on 1997(1) MPWN 105, 2000 M.P. RCJ 158 and further submitted that in a revision petitioner finding of fact recorded by Authority can not be reversed.

In Shiv Narayan Soni v. Smt. Parwati Bai, reported in 1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar Page 280, has held as under :--
An attempt was also made to assail the order stating that the bonafide need of the landlady was not proved as she herself has not entered the witness box. This argument has also no force. She being a lady had executed general power of attorney in favour of her son who entered the witness box to prove her case. There is no law that the bonafide need can be proved only by the evidence of the landlady. It can also be proved through other witnesses. She can also be proved through other witnesses. She being a lady and she having executed a power of attorney in favour of her son it was not compulsory for her to enter the witness box. Her husband was a Government servant and was occupying a Government accommodation. He retired and thereafter died. The eviction case was instituted in 1984 and till this date the landlady has not been able to get the possession of the accommodation because of the untenable defences raised on behalf of the tenant. The revision is, therefore, dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- is certified.
In Surajmal v. Radheshyam, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1345, reported, Where a suit for eviction from premises comprising of shop on ground of bonafide need was dismissed, the second suit on the same ground would be competent. The bonafide need must be considered with reference to the time when a suit for eviction is filed and it can not be assumed that once the question of necessity is decided against the landlord it has to be assumed that he will not have a bonafide and genuine necessity ever in future.