K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision petition is filed against the order dated 9-10-1991, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in Revenue Case No. 2a of 1990 (6) 1990-91 dismissing the case of the applicants landlords. ( 2 ) THE applicants-landlords had filed an application under S. 23a (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that they are owners and landlords of the suit shop and the non-applicant is the tenant in one of their shops at Rs. 500/- per month. The suit premises are required by the appellant No. 1 for his son applicant No. 2. ( 3 ) IN reply, the non-applicant submitted that the land on which the suit shop is located was given on lease to the applicant No. 1 by the Municipal Council, on which she had constructed two shops. Since she wanted to dispose of the suit shop, the non-applicant has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the applicants in Civil Court, which is pending. Relief claimed in that suit is that she should not dispose of those shops. In the application before the Rent Controlling Authority tenancy is not specifically denied, but the ownership is denied on the ground that the landlady is the lessee of Municipal Council in respect of the land over which the landlady constructed the shops and let out. ( 4 ) SINCE the non-applicant failed to deposit the arrears of rent in Court, an application under S. 13 (6) of the Act for striking out his defence was filed. After hearing the arguments on that application, the Rent Controlling Authority has not only dismissed the said application of the applicants, but has also dismissed the application under S. 23a of the Act, on the ground that the question is complicated one and cannot be decided and disposed of by the Rent Controlling Authority. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. ( 5 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that in spite of deciding the application under S. 13 (6) of the Act, whole application ought not have been dismissed and the Rent Controlling Authority has jurisdiction to decide the same. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant supports the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant supports the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the parties, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to be allowed. ( 8 ) THE present application for eviction is filed in S. 23a under Chapter III-A of the Act, which is special provision for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. Cl. (b) of S. 23a of the Act reads as under :-" (B) that the accommodation let for nonresidential purpose is required "bona fide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned";the language of this clause is that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord. ( 9 ) THE word 'landlord' has been defined under S. 2 (b) of the Act, but the landlords which are covered under Chapter III-A are defined in S. 23j which includes a retired government servant including a retired member of Defence Services, a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government, a widow or a divorce wife, physically handicapped person, or a servant of any Government including a member of defence services. The definition of 'landlord' under Chap. III-A is different from the definition of the landlord under S. 2 (b) of the Act. ( 10 ) IN this case, the tenant himself has admitted that the plot was leased to the applicant No. 1 Smt. Ramdularibai, who is a widow, by the Municipal Council, on which she has constructed two shops and one of them is in occupation of the a non-applicant. ( 10 ) IN this case, the tenant himself has admitted that the plot was leased to the applicant No. 1 Smt. Ramdularibai, who is a widow, by the Municipal Council, on which she has constructed two shops and one of them is in occupation of the a non-applicant. Merely because the non-applicant has filed a suit for injunction against the applicants for not to sell this plot or that applicant No. 1 itself is a lessee of the plot on which she has constructed the suit shop, will not debar the Rent Controlling Authority to decide the eviction application under S. 23a of the Act, in which the only question to be decided by the Rent Controlling Authority is whether there is previty of contract between the parties and whether relationship of landlord and tenant between them exists. The Rent Controlling Authority has not to enter into upon the question of title. The question of title is incidental in ejectment suit or proceedings between the landlord and tenant which is based on tenancy contract only. Admittedly the premises were constructed by the applicant-landlady and let out to the non-applicant. Merely because the plot on which the landlady had constructed the suit shop is on lease in favour of landlady will not debar her from claiming eviction of her tenant. ( 11 ) IN the instant cases where the plot of land is taken on lease the structure is built by I the landlord and admittedly he is the owner of the structure. So far as the land is concerned he holds a long lease and in this view of the matter as against the tenant it could not be doubted that he will fall within the ambit of the meaning of the term 'owner' as is contemplated under this Section. (Please see : Shanti Sharma v. Vedprabha, AIR 1987 SC 2028 .) ( 12 ) IN view of above, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority is set aside. The case, is remanded back to the Rent Controlling Authority. Itarsi for decision according to law. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controlling Authority, Itarsi on 15/12/1992. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .