Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1291 (MP)

Bherulal Bhatt v. Kamal Singh

2000-12-05

A.K.GOHIL

body2000
Short Note This revision under section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is directed against the order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Eviction Case No. A-90(7) 53/99, whereby the learned Authority has dismissed the main application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has already filed the suit for eviction against the non-applicant before the civil Court for the same relief. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant filed an application under section 23-A before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore for eviction from the tenanted premises which were let out for residential purpose on the ground that the applicant was an employee of State Government and he has already attained the age of superannuation and. therefore, the accommodation let out for residential purpose is required by the landlord for himself and for the members of his family and that the landlord has no other reasonable residential accommodation of his own in Indore city. In this case, the non-applicant on 27.3.2000 filed an application under section 10, CPC for staying the further proceedings on the ground that the applicant has already filed a civil suit No. 11-A/2000 in the Court of VIII ADJ. Indore for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and nuisance. In reply the submission of applicant was that provisions of section 10, CPC are not applicable and he has filed this application on the ground that he is a retired Government servant. The cause of action and the grounds for eviction in both the suits are different and the two suits are maintainable on different grounds. The learned authority after hearing the learned counsel for parties by order dated 26.4.2000 instead of passing an order on the application u/s 10, CPC dismissed the main application of the applicant on the ground that in view of the civil suit pending, the application for eviction u/s 23-A is not maintainable. The applicant has challenged the same before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Learned counsel has invited my attention that u/f 23-A, the proceedings for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement is special in nature and they are limited only upto the bona fide requirement of Government servant. The applicant has challenged the same before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Learned counsel has invited my attention that u/f 23-A, the proceedings for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement is special in nature and they are limited only upto the bona fide requirement of Government servant. Learned counsel for applicant also drew my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ratnakar v. Haji Inayat Ullah, reported in AIR 1989 MP 134 . in which it has been held that the RCA has no jurisdiction or authority to pass a decree for arrears of rent claimed which had fallen due prior to the date of application u/f 12(1)(A) of the said Act. For those past arrears of rent, the landlord has only remedy to approach the competent civil Court. As per the proceedings of section 23-H, tenant is bound to make payment as required by section 13 only from the date of filing of application before the RCA and not earlier. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for applicant is that the plaintiff is in arrears of rent since 1.8.1997, therefore, he has filed a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent against him and also for obtaining a decree of eviction on the ground of nuisance and applicant is entitled to file a suit before the civil Court on the grounds other than the ground of bona fide requirement as a Government servant which is a special provision. He further cited the decision in the case of Zinatbai v. Munnikhan [ 1987(II) MPWN 144 ] in which this Court has held that the provisions of section 10, CPC are not applicable in the proceedings before RCA. He also cited decision in the case of Phoolwati Hakim v. Ramesh Manocha reported in 1994(II) MPWN 243 , in which it has been held that the eviction proceedings pending before civil Court in which title of landlord has been challenged as both are not suits. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the RCA is not a legal order and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and revision is liable to be allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the RCA is not a legal order and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside and revision is liable to be allowed. Proceedings under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are special provisions for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of residential accommodation as well as non-residential accommodation to certain category of persons which are mentioned in section 23-J of the Act. Therefore, the scope of section 23-A is limited. As has already been held by this Court in the case of Ratnakar (supra), the jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred to pass a decree for eviction u/s 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (c) of the Act in view of the application filed before RCA u/s 23-A of the Act. In view of this clear position the finding recorded by RCA that the two suits cannot be filed is absolutely illegal and the dismissal of the application on that ground is also illegal. Since the proceedings before RCA is not suit within the meaning of section 10, CPC, therefore, the provisions of section 10 are not applicable on the proceedings pending before the RCA u/s 23-A. The matter in issue is also not directly and substantially the same in two proceedings. A separate civil suit is maintainable for the recovery of the arrears of the rent and also for eviction on the ground of nuisance and also on other grounds except the grounds which are covered by section 23-A of the Act. In this case the application before RCA was pending solely on the ground of bona fide requirement of the applicant as he is a retired Government servant within the definition of section 23-J of the Act. The RCA has also committed an illegality in considering the two proceedings as same proceedings. He has not considered that the suit pending in the civil Court is for arrears of rent and eviction on the ground of nuisance and here application was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use. The RCA has also committed an illegality in considering the two proceedings as same proceedings. He has not considered that the suit pending in the civil Court is for arrears of rent and eviction on the ground of nuisance and here application was filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use. In view of this factual and legal position on record this revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by RCA on 26.4.2000 is hereby set aside holding that the provisions of section 10, CPC are not applicable and a separate suit is also maintainable on other grounds. The case is remanded to the RCA. The RCA shall proceed further in the matter and decide the application on merits in accordance with law.