ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. 1.The respondent landlord after having retired from the government service accepted an appointment in a Government aided school. .During this period he built a house and let it out to the present petitioner. He sought eviction under Chapter III-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He was successful in this litigation. The tenant has preferred a petition under Section 23-E of the Act. The main ground urged by him is that respondent landlord is not a landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A of the Act. It is specifically pleaded that definition of landlord as occurring in Section 23-J does not embrace the case of respondent. Before noticing the facts this statutory provision be noticed. This reads as under :- "23-J. Definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A. - (i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services; or (ii) a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government; or * * ** ** 2. The brief facts be now noticed. 3. One Narbada Prasad, retired from government service on 30th March, 1976. He built a house after retirement. This was let out to the present petitioner on 6th August, 1985. He sought eviction by initiating eviction proceedings by resorting to speedy provisions contained in Chapter III of the Act. The Rent Controller allowed the application. It is against this order, the present petition has been preferred. 4. The main argument which has been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that the speedy provisions indicated in Chapter III of the Act are not available to the landlord as he does not fall within the definition of the term 'landlord'. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord having let out the premises after retirement, he had deprived himself of the benefits which the legislature conferred on him by inserting Chapter III-A. 5. Before noticing the various decisions on which reliance has been placed by the tenant-petitioner the statement of the landlord made before the Rent Controlling Authority may be noticed. He appeared as A.W. 1. He has stated that after his retirement he joined Saraswati Shishu Mandir. According to him, this institution is aided by the State Government. Before noticing the various decisions on which reliance has been placed by the tenant-petitioner the statement of the landlord made before the Rent Controlling Authority may be noticed. He appeared as A.W. 1. He has stated that after his retirement he joined Saraswati Shishu Mandir. According to him, this institution is aided by the State Government. The learned counsel for the landlord has further stated that the landlord was not cross-examined on this aspect of the matter. 6. Two arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the tenant. These are. - (i) that the provisions of Chapter III-A are not available to a landlord who lets out premises after his retirement. (ii) the landlord having retired from a government aided school does not fall within the definition of term 'landlord' as occurring in Section 23-J. 7. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the tenant on two decisions reported as Badri Parshad v. Chaman Lal, 1987 MPRCJ 66 and Om Parkash v. Mool Chand 1989 MPRCJ 1. Both the decisions are of no assistance to the petitioner tenant as these were specifically overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Janindra Kumar v. Roshan Lal, 1993 (2) MPJR 74 . In para 6 of the judgment it was observed. - "The language of the provision is wide enough to include a retired government servant to acquire the accommodation after his retirement. The words 'a retired servant of any government including a retired member of defence services are capable of only one interpretation and that every retired government servant is a landlord within the meaning of section and therefore, entitled to invoke special jurisdiction under Section 23-A of the Act." 8. In view of the above there is no escape from the conclusion that the respondent landlord could invoke the provisions referred to above. Same view is discernible from another decision of this Court reported as Director, E.S.I. Services v. Smt. Kamla Devi, 1993 MPWN Note 95. 9. Even the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance. A Division Bench of this Court in a case reported as Ranjit Narain Haksar v. Surinder Verma, 1991(1) Rent Control Reporter 301 has concluded that employees of statutory Corporations would also fall within the purview of Section 23-J (ii). The view expressed in Sobhagyamal v. Parkash Pharmaceuticals, AIR 1990 MP 345 was overruled. A Division Bench of this Court in a case reported as Ranjit Narain Haksar v. Surinder Verma, 1991(1) Rent Control Reporter 301 has concluded that employees of statutory Corporations would also fall within the purview of Section 23-J (ii). The view expressed in Sobhagyamal v. Parkash Pharmaceuticals, AIR 1990 MP 345 was overruled. The same would be the position with regard to other cases namely Shiv Singh v. Krishan Gopal, 1986 MPRCJ 341 and Mohan Das v. Diwan Dass, 1995 (2) Rent Control Reporter 298. The Division Bench had approved the view expressed in Vipan v. Ranjit Narain, 1986 MPRCJ Note 11. It was held by the Division Bench that the expression company has been used in its general legal sense and would embrace government owned or controlled statutory corporations. The society where the respondent landlord was re-employed is getting 100% aid from the government. It is authority for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as well. What was said by the Division Bench in Ranjit Narain's case (supra) would apply to a landlord who has retired from a Government aided school also. For this additional reason also he would be entitled to the benefit of aforementioned provision. 10. In this regard it would be apt to notice some case law under the Punjab Act. A landlord who has been defined as a "specified landlord" is entitled to a speedy remedy. The term specified landlord has been defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. This Act is East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The definition of 'specified landlord' is as under - "(hh) 'Specified landlord' means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State." While interpreting the above provision some of the employees of Banks, Corporations etc. were held to be 'specified landlords'. Some of these decisions may be noticed. - (i) In S.S. Sodhi v. Wing Comm. Narinderpal Singh, (1991) 9 Legal Reports and Statutes (Pb.) 149, an employee who had sought re-employment with a Bank after his retirement from Indian Airforce was held entitled to seek speedy procedure after his retirement from the Bank. were held to be 'specified landlords'. Some of these decisions may be noticed. - (i) In S.S. Sodhi v. Wing Comm. Narinderpal Singh, (1991) 9 Legal Reports and Statutes (Pb.) 149, an employee who had sought re-employment with a Bank after his retirement from Indian Airforce was held entitled to seek speedy procedure after his retirement from the Bank. (ii) an employee of Food Corporation of India was also held to be a specified landlord in Om Parkash Tuli v. Vidya Bhushan Nagra, in (1992) 11 Legal Reports and Statutes 645; (iii) a retired employee of Punjab National Bank was held to be specified landlord in Girwar Lal v. Khadi Bhandar, (1993) 13 Legal Reports and Statutes (Pb.) 284. (iv) employee of a Nationalised Bank was held to be a specified landlord in Vijay Kumar Bhambri v. Ram Nath Bajaj, (1990) 8 Legal Reports and Statutes 51. (v) an employee working as controller in the Punjab University was held to be covered by the above definition in Yashpal Dhir v. R. L. Gosain, (1992) 11 Legal Reports and Statutes 649. (vi) employee of Bhakra Beas Management Board was held entitled to speedy remedy in Parminder Singh v. Budh Singh, (1990) 8 Legal Reports and Statutes (Pb.) 359. (viii) employees of Municipalities we're held to be entitled to the speedy remedy in the case of Fateh Chand v. Balbir Singh (1991) 9 Legal Reports and Statutes (Pb.) 412. 11. Thus I am of the view that on account of the reasoning given in Janindra Kumar's Jain (supra) the respondent landlord was rightly given the benefit of Section 23-J and of Chapter III-A of the Act. Again in view of the Division Bench Judgment in Ranjit Singh Narain Haskar's case (supra) the respondent landlord would be deemed to be covered by Section 23-J(ii) and would also be entitled to eviction in his this capacity. This petition is as such without merit and dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 500/-