JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No. 323/87 (Furindersingh vs. Rent Controlling Authority and another ). ( 2. ) THIS is a revision filed by the applicant-plaintiff against the Order dated 24-7-1987 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) in Eviction Case No. 206 of 1984 whereby the learned authority has transferred the case for trial by the Civil Judge, holding that the authority has no jurisdiction to try the case. ( 3. ) CIVIL Revision No. 323/87 has been filed by the tenant-defendant against the very same order passed by the Authority, praying that the impugned order of the Authority transferring the case be set aside and the plaintiffs application for eviction be dismissed. ( 4. ) BY the impugned order the Authority has directed transfer of the plaintiffs application for eviction for trial by the Civil Court on the ground that she let out the accommodation in question to the non-applicant-tenant when she was already a widow, she having become widow on 11-5-1975 and the accommodation in question was let out on 1-12-1978. The learned Authority has relied upon a decision in badriprashad vs. Chimanlal 1987 MPRCJ 66. That was a case of retired government servant who let out his accommodation after his retirement and was held to be not covered by the definition of landlord provided in Section 23-J of the act on the authority of a Supreme Court decision in Mrs. Winifred Ross and another vs. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and others, AIR 1984 S. C. 458. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant-plaintiff has submitted that although among the particular classes of landlords included in the definition of landlord in section 23-J of the Act who are entitled to avail of the forum of the authority for expeditious disposal of the application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the accommodation, the class of retired government servants and the class of widows are included in sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of Section 23-J of the Act, it will be wrong to draw any similarity between the two classes so as to apply the aforesaid authority concerning a retired Government Servant to the instant case of a widow landlord. Learned counsel has cited a decision of this court in Smt. Radhabai vs. Arjundas, 1988 MPLI342 = 1988 JU 44, which is a complete answer to the question involved in this case. It has been held therein that the provision of clause (iii) of Section 23-J of the Act on a reasonable classification is meant for widows or a divorced wife as a class and, therefore, in the case of a widow no distinction can be made with reference to the tenancy whether created prior or subsequent to her widowhood. ( 6. ) IN case of a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of defence services, included in sub-clause (i) of Section 23-J of the Act which defines landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A of the Act, the classification of such retired government servants appears to be on the basis of the object that while they are in service they should not feel worried about the difficulties of a long drawn-out litigation when they wish to get back the premises which they have leased out during the service. Having regard to this object the retired government servants, who lease out their premises after their retirement, cannot reasonably be covered in the class of landlords included in Clause (i) of Section 23-J of the Act. In mrs. Winifred Rosss case (supra) which relates to the case of a retired member of the Armed Forces, covered under a similar provision of the Bombay Act, the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this connection are as follows : "since a liberal interpretation of Section 13-A1 of the Act is likely to expose it to a successful challenge on the basis of Article 14 of the constitution, it has to be read down as conferring benefit only on those members of the Armed Forces who were landlords of the premises in question while they were in service even though they may avail of it after their retirement. Such a construction would save it from the criticism that it is discriminatory and also would advance the object of enacting it, namely, that members of the Armed Forces should not while they are in service feel worried about the difficulties of a long drawn out litigation when they wish to get back the premises which they have leased out during their service. Persons in the position of the landlord in the present case cannot, therefore, maintain a suit under Section 13-A1 of the Act. " ( 7. ) BUT in case of a landlord who is a widow the object of classification is altogether different The classification appears to be justified with a view to conferring benefit to widow on account of her disability as a widow. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution of India enables the State to make any special provision for women. The class of widow is certainly a disadvantaged class and it is immaterial as to when the landlord became a widow prior to institution of a case for eviction on the ground of her bona fide need. Consequently, the impugned order of the laarned authority who has wrongly applied the principles of Badriprashads case (supra) of a retired Government Servant, to the instant case of a widow landlord, cannot be sustained and must be set aside. ( 8. ) IN the result this Civil Revision No. 295/87, Smt. Vimladevi vs. Gurindersingh, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the authority is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Authority for disposal according to law. ( 9. ) CIVIL Revision No. 323/87, Furindersingh vs. Rent Controlling Authority and another filed by the tenant-defendant fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall, however, be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.