The two appellants companytested the claim preferred by the respondents.
7 of 1985 w.e.f.
Section 12 of the Act, which opens with a number obstante clause, provides for numbersuit against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation being filed in any Civil Court except on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein.
Thus the rights, obligations and protection of the tenants in the matter of eviction from accommodations are governed principally by Section 12 of the Act and suit against tenant seeking eviction can be filed only in Civil Court.
They initiated the proceedings for eviction of the two appellants in December 1995.
The High Court, having dealt with each of the companytentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners, has dismissed the revision petitions upholding the orders of the R.C.A. Feeling aggrieved thereby these appeals have been filed by special leave.
These three are the respondents in these appeals.
Krishnadas died on 8.7.1995.
P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is a legislation providing for regulation and companytrol of letting and rent of accommodations and generally to regulate the companytrol of eviction of tenants from accommodations and for other matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
These proceedings for eviction were initiated under Chapter III A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 hereinafter the Act, for short by filing applications before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore RCA, for short .
Kalawatibai and two sons Govinda and Hemant.
The case of the respondents is that the shop in the occupation of appellant Dhannalal is required bona fide for starting the business of Govinda, the respondent number2, while the shop in the occupation of the other appellant, M s Tulsidas Sureshchandra is required by the respondent Hemant for shifting and companytinuing his readymade garments business which he is presently running in a rented accommodation situated in Gorakund locality, at a little distance from the building in question.
16.1.1985.
His ownership and right of reversion as landlord have devolved on his widow Smt.
Both the appellants preferred revision petitions under Section 23 E of the Act before the High Court.
However, the R.C.A. found the claims for eviction proved and directed the two appellants to be evicted.
C. Lahoti, J. Leave granted.
It is alleged that the respondents do number own or possess any other accommodation of their own suitable to satisfy their alleged requirement.
The suit premises in these two appeals are two shops situated in T. Cloth Market, Indore on the ground floor of a building.
The property was owned by late Krishnadas.
It also provides for expeditious trial of eviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of certain categories of landlords.
