ORDER S. K. Dubey, J. 1. This is tenant's revision under section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (for short, the 'Act'), against an order dated 4-2-1988, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior (for short, the 'Rent Controller') in case No. 276/83-84/90x7, whereby the objection of the applicant that the landlord/respondent is not a physically handicapped person and, as such, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 23-A of the Act, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are: The respondent who is employed in the M. P. Electricity Board and whose left hand is amputated, filed an application under section 23-A of the Act, seeking eviction of the applicant from the suit premises-residental accommodation. The landlord invoked the special jurisdiction conferred on the Rent Controller on the ground that he is a landlord falling in the specified category of Section 23-J (iv) of the Act. The applicant challenged the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller contending that the landlord is not a physically handicapped person, he is physically fit and is serving in the M. P. Electricity Board (for short, 'MPEB'); there is no loss of earning capacity or disablement, it is only the finger of the left hand which is amputated. The Rent Controller on this plea relating to jurisdiction, tried the jurisdictional issue. To prove his case that he is physically handicapped, which was specifically pleaded, the landlord filed a certificate (Ex. P-1) issued by the Civil Surgeon, Gwalior, on 1-2-1985 and countersigned by the Collector, Gwalior, known as "VIKLANG PARICHAY PATRA" (Identity card for Hand-capped), whereby the landlord was declared as a physically Handicapped person. The landlord also examined Dr. B. S. Saxena, C. M. O. cum-Civil Surgeon, Gwalior to prove the certificate and also to prove that the landlord's left hand is amputated. The applicant examined Dr. A. K. Dubey, orthopaedic Surgeon and in-Charge Medical Officer, J. A. Hospital, Gwalior, who in his statement stated that the landlord is a handicapped person, but as he is doing clerical job, this handicap is no obstruction in his working or earning capacity. In cross-examination Dr. Dubey admitted that the landlord cannot catch, hold or push anything with his left hand. During the examination of these two Doctors, the landlord remained present before the Rent Controller. In cross-examination Dr. Dubey admitted that the landlord cannot catch, hold or push anything with his left hand. During the examination of these two Doctors, the landlord remained present before the Rent Controller. The applicant did not examine himself nor he led any other evidence to controvert the fact. The Rent Controller found that the landlord is a physically handicapped person falling within the definition of landlord specified under Section 23-J (iv) of the Act, and held that he has jurisdiction to entertain the application. Aggrieved of this order, the applicant/tenant has come up in revision. 3. Shri R. K. Patni, learned counsel for the applicant contended that as held by this Court in case of Satulal 1988 MPRCJ 87, it is not enough to state in the application to invoke the special jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, that a person is physically handicapped, but such person should satisfy the Rent Controller as to how he is handicapped, the extent, nature and effect thereof. Learned counsel submits that as the disability having not been proved and there being no reducation in the earning capacity of the landlord, the learned Rent Controller erred in not dismissing the application of the respondent-land-lord. 4. Shri V. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, supported the impugned order. 5. After hearing learned counsel, I am of the opinion that this revision has no merit. It is true that in Satulal (supra), the term "handicap" having not been defined in the Act, this Court thought it safe to go by dictionary meaning of the term given in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (the unabridged edition); Webster's Third New Inter-national Dictionary and A supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 12). Besides, support to determine the implication of a physically handicapped person was also derived from Section 80-D (1) (b) of the Incomes Tax Act, 1961, and Section 2 (g) and 2 (1) of the workman's Compensation Act, 1923, which deals with partial disablement and total disablement. In para 14 it was observed that the term used in S. 23-J (iv) must mean something more than Mere claim of being a physically handicapped person. In para 14 it was observed that the term used in S. 23-J (iv) must mean something more than Mere claim of being a physically handicapped person. The person so claiming must establish and satisfy the Court with regard to the nature and extent of his disablement or handicapped ness also to show as to how it has a material bearing on the need propounded by him, be it for residential or for nonresidential accommodation. There-after, on facts, it was found that the landlord cannot be held to be physically handicapped because he had only a crushed foot injury, and there was nothing to indicate the' nature of the landlord's disablement in carrying out the business pleaded by him. On the other hand, on evidence, it was proved that he was plying a truck. 6. Earlier to this decision, this Court had another occasion to consider the term "handicap" in case of Badrinarayan 1987 (II) MPWN 96, wherein after considering the causes of physical handicapped ness the Court observed that a person would be physically handicapped if there is a reduction of his functional capacity. Support was taken from the definition of the categories of the handicapped ' for the purpose of, reservation in employment according to the M. P. State Government standard as per their notification dated 30th June 1981, published ' in "Masik Patrika-Sev Alok", wherein three categories, namely, the blind, the deaf and the orthopaedically handicapped persons, were included; the third category of persons are those who have physical defect or deformity which causes an interference with the normal functioning of the bones, muscles and joints. 7. While dealing, with a case under the Act, which has not defined "handicap", the jurisdiction of the Court will not depend on the loss of earning capacity of the physically handicapped person, but the reduction of functional capacity and the disablement of the handicapped person, either partial or total, will, in my opinion, be the determinative factor, because a physically handicapped person may or may not earn more than what a normal man earns; it depends upon his work, nature of duties, will and determination to work and earn more. Amputation of finger of the left hand from palm, as admitted by both Doctors, clearly establishes the fact that there is reduction of functional capacity and is a physical disability of the landlord. Amputation of finger of the left hand from palm, as admitted by both Doctors, clearly establishes the fact that there is reduction of functional capacity and is a physical disability of the landlord. He cannot lift;, push or hold anything with his left hand, except that he can do clerical; job with the right hand which he is doing, in the MPEB. The landlord did not enter the witness-box, for which Shri Patni placing reliance on AIR 1927 PC 230, submitted that the Rent Controller ought to have raised an adverse inference against the landlord that he is not a physically handicapped person. The submission has no merit. Both parties have led medical evidence. The evidence of the two Doctors, who had an occasion to see the left hand of the landlord, clearly establishes that the functional capacity of the landlord's left hand is reduced and he is disabled to do any work With his left hand because of the amputation of the fingers and palm. Moreover, under the workmen's compensation Act, 1923, to such type of injury-amputation-is a scheduled injury as defined in schedule I, for that a workman has not to prove his loss of earning capacity, and the Commissioner having satisfied of the amputation or of the scheduled injury has to award compensation as prescribed under Schedule of the Act. 8. Besides, the Collector, Gwalior, has also issued a certificate of handicapped ness to the landlord on certifying by the C.M.O.-cum-Civil Surgeon, Gwalior. Therefore, reliance on Satulal's case (supra) which has not taken note of the earlier decision of this Court in Badrinarayan's case (supra) and is distinguishable on facts, is of no help for the applicant in the present case. The finding of the Rent Controller on the jurisdictional issue is based on appreciation of legal evidence, which, in my opinion, is neither perverse nor illegal. No illegality or infirmity was pointed out nor is. detected in the impugned order. 9. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller that the; landlord/respondent is a physically handicapped person and falls within the definition of "landlord" in the specified category (iv) of Section 23-J of the Act is legal and correct and does not call for any interference in revision. 10. In the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed with costs. The respondent/landlord shall be entitled to costs of this revision. Counsel's fee Rs. 10. In the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed with costs. The respondent/landlord shall be entitled to costs of this revision. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/-, if already certified. 11. The record of the Rent Controller shall be sent at once. Let the Rent Controller proceed with the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. As the application for eviction was filed on 16th May 1984, it is, expected that the Rent Controller shall dispose of the application expeditiously not later than six months from 3-9-90 and it is hoped that the parties shall Co-operate in the disposal of the application. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 3rd September 1990, for which no fresh notice need be issued by the Rent Controller.