ORDER 1. The only point raised in this revision is that the suit for eviction of the petitioner was not maintainable in the civil Court, on the ground that one of the landlord, respondent No. 1 was a retired Govt. servant and the tenancy was in occupation of the petitioner while the respondent No.1 was in service. 2. The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter, referred to as the' Act'). The word 'landlord' has defined in this section 23-J as a retired Govt. Servant when the accommodation is already let out during his service tenure, and in that event, a retired Govt. Servant can move an application for eviction u/S. 23-A of the Act, only before the Rent Controlling Authority, and no civil suit lies. 3. The facts of this case are slightly different. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant was a tenant in a different portion of the same house. After retirement of the respondent No. lIplaintiff, the defendant was shifted in a different portion of the same house as a tenant. This, according to the respondents, was a creation of a separate tenancy, and section 23-J of the Act has no application. According to the respondents, the defendant has been put in a different portion of the house, no doubt as a tenant after retirement of the respondent No.1 and that is a creation of a separate tenancy, and in such a case, there is no application of section 23-J of the Act, and therefore, a suit for eviction is maintainable in civil Court. That contention has been accepted by the trial Court on the preliminary issue and the suit is held to be maintainable in civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant alleged that although it is clear that he has been shifted in a different portion of the house as a tenant after the retirement of the respondent No.1, but this shifting is in continuance of the original tenancy which was in existence during the tenure of the respondent No.1 in Govt. service, and in that view of the matter, no civil suit lies for eviction and only remedy of the respondents was to file an application before the Rent Controlling Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Harbans v. Smt. Margret q. Bhingardive, 1990 JLJ 97 (FB). service, and in that view of the matter, no civil suit lies for eviction and only remedy of the respondents was to file an application before the Rent Controlling Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Harbans v. Smt. Margret q. Bhingardive, 1990 JLJ 97 (FB). This was a case for seeking eviction by one of the co-landlord, without impleading the other. This Court held that one of the co-landlord can seek his remedy against the tenant u/S. 23-A of the Act. The question in controversy in the present case was not at all answered by the Full Bench in the abovesaid case, and it has no application. Anothercases of Shivraj Jat v. Asha Lata Yadav, 1989 MPLJ 202 , Jagdishprasad v. Sumitradevi, 1986 JLl 765 and Shivram v. Hardayal Singh, 1989 (1) WN SN 217 were also relied by the counsel for the petitioner, which have no application to the facts of the present case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs placed reliance on the cases of A.N. Seth v. Bibhuti Ranjan Mandal, 1988 (1) MPWN 33, Shankarrao v. Chandrabhan, SN 185 of the same volume, Badri Prasad v. Chiman Lal, 1987 MPRCJ 66, Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Madhav Rao, 1987 MPRCJ SN 56. In all these cases, this Court had specifically held that once it is found that the tenancy was created after the retirement of a Govt. servant, section 23-J of the Act has no application. 6. In the present case, in my opinion, shifting of the tenant in a different portion of the same house amounts to creation of a separate tenancy and section 23-J is not applicable. The trial Court rightly held, in this situation, that a suit lies in civil Court for eviction. 7. There is another aspect of this case that the defendant/petitioner claimed that the tenancy was created by the wife of the Govt. servant/respondent No.1 She is also a plaintiff/respondent No.2 Smt. Kamla Bhargava. In that situation, also, when the wife is the landlord and she was not in Government service and in the life time of her husband, even after retirement, a remedy of the landlord lies in civil suit and the provisions of sections 23-J and 23-A of the Act have no application. In either case, when there is a creation of separate tenancy after the retirement of the Govt. In either case, when there is a creation of separate tenancy after the retirement of the Govt. servant, and if ultimately it was found that the wife of the Govt. servant had inducted the petitioner as tenant in a separate portion, in that event as well, only civil suit lies and no remedy can be available before the Rent Controlling Authority u/S. 23-A of the Act. 8. The trial Court was fully justified in holding that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This revision, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.