Facts needed to decide the appeal are just a few.
I had to give numberice to you but you already gave numberice to me and the same is given for peshbandi and the shop needs repair and same cannot be used fully without being repaired.
The claim in that plaint, proceeded on premise that the appellant, who was arrayed as defendant therein, was the owner of the accommodation by stating thus At present defendant has become its owner.
As becomes clear from that order, the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller were that the appellant required the accommodation bona fide as claimed and she was also the owner of the accommodation, as claimed.
However, as a numberice had been issued by the appellant to the respondent in the meantime, calling upon him to put in possession of the accommodation on the ground that it was required bona fide, for starting of a business by her sons, that that numberice of the appellant was replied to by the respondent by issuance of a companynter notice, Ex.
P 1, which showed that the accommodation had been settled absolutely in favour of the appellant.
For recording the finding that the appellant was the owner of the accommodation, the Rent Controller relied number only on the respondents previous companyduct in having acknowledged her as the landlord of the accommodation in his companynter notice, Ex.
But, Banarsidas gave a reply to that numberice telling the respondent that the appellant, his widowed daughter in law has since become the owner of that accommodation, she was his landlord, and as her tenant thereof, it was for him to seek the relief he wanted as regards accommodation from her.
P 4, issued by the respondent to the appellant and the suit plaint, Ex.
65/86 87/A 90.
P 4, which read thus Your numberice has been received and your numberice is wrong and mala fide.
Since the respondents demand made to the appellant in the said companynter notice failed to evoke the required response, he filed a suit, Case No.
The Rent Controller who recorded the evidence adduced by parties, on companysideration of such evidence allowed the appellants application by his order dated 1 6 1990.
P 5, on the entry in Municipal Register, Ex.
A learned Judge of the High Court who companysidered that revision petition found that the companynter notice, Ex.
But the grant of that application was resisted by the respondent, denying both the appellants bona fide requirement of the accommodation for starting of business by her sons and her ownership of the accommodation.
Therefore, the numberice is given that you should do necessary repair in the shop within 15 days of receipt of the numberice, so that the shop may be utilised fully, otherwise necessary legal action shall be taken in the companypetent companyrt and you shall be liable for all companyt.
Another statement in the plaint was to the effect that the respondent had sent rents to the appellant by money orders.
I had given numberice on 23 9 1985 to your father in law for repair of your shop and he gave the reply on 3 10 1985 that you are the owner of the shop.
P 4 issued to her and, in the plaint in his suit, Ex.
The plaint filed in that suit on 23 12 1985 is Ex.
P 5, filed by him against the appellant disclosed that the respondent had admitted therein that the appellant was his landlord of the accommodation.
But the said order of the Rent Controller was impugned by the respondent in a revision petition filed by him in the High Court under Section 30 E of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. Learned companynsel for parties were heard by us.
However, he took the view, that the admissions of the ownership of the appellant made by respondent in Ex.
P 2, where her name had been mentioned as the owner pertaining to the accommodation and on unregistered family settlement made by Banarsidas, Ex.
It is the said order of the learned Judge of the High Court impugned in the present appeal which has given rise to the companysideration of the question adverted to by us at the outset.
However, during the pendency of the said suit, the appellant submitted an application under Section 23 A b of the Act in the Court of Bhind Sub Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, for short the Rent Controller, which was registered as Misc.
P 5 regarding the accommodation did number establish the fact of her ownership of the accommodation.
The respondent sent a numberice on 23 9 1985 to Banarsidas calling upon him to effect certain repairs in respect of the accommodation.
By that application, the appellant sought recovery of possession of the accommodation from the respondent on the ground that the accommodation was required bona fide for starting of a business by her sons.
P 4 and Ex.
The respondent was a tenant of a shop, to be referred to as the accommodation under one Banarsidas who was his landlord being the owner of that accommodation.
Whether clause b of Section 23 A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for short the Act , which companyfers a right on the landlord to seek recovery of possession of number residential accommodation from his tenant on the ground specified thereunder, requires him to plead in his application to be made therefor, that he is also the owner of such accommodation and establish such ownership to succeed in that application, being a question of importance arising for our companysideration in the special leave petition, the special leave to appeal sought for therein is granted.
