JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 28-11-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Indore, negativing the petitioners contention that the non-applicants application under Section 23-A of the Act is premature. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the non-applicants became landlords of the tenanted premises on 10-12-1985 on the death of Narendarsingh and their application under Section 23-A, Chapter III-A of the Act for his eviction filed on 26-11-1986 not being after a lapse of one year as contemplated by the proviso to sub-section 23-A. of the Act, is premature. ( 3. ) IT is no doubt true that in a sense on the death of the holder of property his interests therein, by devolution, stand transferred to his heir or heirs as the case may be, but the point for consideration is whether such transfer by law and not by act of any party is within the coverage of the proviso. ( 4. ) THE proviso referred to above is in these words : "provided that where a person who is landlord has acquired any accommodation or any interest therein by transfer, no application for eviction of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisition. " ( 5. ) IN the decision in Chandbhai vs. Phoolchand, 1966 MPLJ 1080, where the tenanted premises had been purchased by the landlord before coming into force of the Act, it was held that the eviction suit having been filed within one year of acquisition was not maintainable. ( 6. ) IN the decision in Pyarelasa vs. Garanchandsa, 1964 MPLJ 334 = AIR 1965 mp 1 , it has been pointed out that definition of transfer in Section 5 of the Act is not exhaustive and it does not cover all sorts of transfers of property. Therein it has been observed as under: "though partition might not be a transfer for the purpose of some of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, for the purpose of Section 109 of that Act, however, it is a transfer in a general sense of the term. Therein it has been observed as under: "though partition might not be a transfer for the purpose of some of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, for the purpose of Section 109 of that Act, however, it is a transfer in a general sense of the term. Since on partition rights in specific property of all the other members of the joint family to whom the suit property once belonged ceased to exist except of the member to whom it is allotted such a member of the erstwhile joint family becomes entitled to realise the rent and eject the tenant of the property allotted to him, as the principles of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property act, extend in the case of partition. A notice to quit by the coparceners to whom the property in possession of the tenant is allotted, is therefore, a valid one. " ( 7. ) IN the decision in Tribhuvandas vs. Premchand, 1964 MPLJ 904 = 1964 JLJ 544, interpreting the corresponding provision in Section 12 (4) occurring in Chapter II of the Act it has been held that allotment of a house in partition of a coparcenary property is not acquisition by transfer and the provision is not attracted in the case of partition. Therein it has been observed as under : "the question turns on the meaning of the word acquire and by transfer. The plain meaning of the word acquire in the law of contracts and descents is to become owner of property. The term transfer means to convey or pass the right of one person over to another. Acquisition by transfer of a property is, therefore, an act or transaction by which the property of one person becomes vested in another. " "in my judgment, construing the words "acquired" and by transfer according to their plain and natural meaning and having regard to the concept and legal consequences of partition in Hindu law, there can be no doubt that when a coparcener gets an item of property in partition there is no acquisition by him of that property by transfer. " ( 8. " ( 8. ) THE object behind the proviso to the sub-section 23-A of the Act appears to be to dissuade persons to resort to transfer of property as a device for securing eviction of tenants and in the context in which the question of acquisition of interest by transfer arises in the proviso. I am of the view that it takes within its ambit only such transfer of property as is defined in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. The relevant portion of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act reads thus :- "5. Transfer of Property defined - In the following sections transfer of property means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future to one or more other living persons, or to himself, and one or more other living persons, or to himself, and one or more other living persons, and to transfer property* is to perform such act. " ( 9. ) AS a result of the foregoing discussion I am of the view that the impugned order is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference in revision. ( 10. ) IN the result, the revision petition which is without merit, is summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed.