Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 4-12-99, passed by RCA, Bhopal in M. J. C. No. 5/99. ( 2. ) APPLICANT/landlord, H. R. Agrawal filed application under Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the act for convenience) before the RCA, Bhopal. It was registered as Case No. 44/rca, Bhopal/99. Tenant/non-applicant K. B. Upadhyay resisted the application stating inter alia that the suit premises since had been let out after the retirement of the landlord/applicant from the Government service, application under Section 23-A of the Act is not maintainable. Accepting the contention, the RCA vide order dated 20-8-99 rejected the application on the sole ground that the landlord/applicant retired in the year 1986 and the suit premise has been let out to the tenant/non-applicant in the year 1991. After some time, tenant/non-applicant filed application under Section 23-I of the Act seeking an order to saddle with a heavy compensatory cost against the landlord/applicant as he made a false or frivolous application under Section 23-A of the Act. An exparte order dated 4-12-99 was passed by RCA, directing the landlord/applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,790/- to the tenant/non-applicant within the period of 7 days. Being aggrieved, landlord/applicant has preferred this revision. ( 3. ) ANNEXURE A is the order dated 20-8-99 rejecting the application under Section 23-A of the Act on the ground that landlord/applicant since retired in the year 1986 from the Government service, had let out the suit premises subsequently to tenant/non-applicant in the year 1991. Therefore, the application was not maintainable. In this order it is clear that no evidence was adduced by either party and an objection as to the maintainability the aforesaid order was passed directing the parties to bear their costs. The tenant/non-applicant on 30-9-99 filed application under Section 23-I of the Act seeking indulgence of the Tribunal requesting to award heavy compensatory cost to him. It seems that in M. J. C. No. 5/99 a show-cause notice was issued to landlord/applicant and on the basis of report of refusal he had been proceeded exparte. Notices in original with duplicate copy bearing signature of RCA are enclosed in the M. J. C. No. 5/99. It seems that in M. J. C. No. 5/99 a show-cause notice was issued to landlord/applicant and on the basis of report of refusal he had been proceeded exparte. Notices in original with duplicate copy bearing signature of RCA are enclosed in the M. J. C. No. 5/99. On the back of the duplicate copy, report dated 13-10-99 is recorded to the effect that landlord/applicant H. R. Agrawal refused to accept the notice. On the basis of this report the landlord/applicant had been proceeded exparte. The report is incomplete so far as the ingredients of service are required under Order 5 Rule 17, CPC where the defendant refused to accept the service, the Serving Officer was required to affix a copy of summons/notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business etc. Therefore, it is, evident that on alleged refusal the Surving Officer had not affixed copy of the summons/notice on the outer door of the residential house of landlord/applicant. The Tribunal has wrongly proceeded exparte on the basis of service aforesaid. ( 4. ) THE tenant/applicant filed application under Section 23-I of the Act stating simplicitor that the application under Section 23-A of the Act in Case No. 44/rca/98 was false and frivolous. Further details of application being false, frivolous were not stated. This is an admitted fact that the tenant/non-applicant is in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant of the landlord/applicant. On the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide need, the applicant being a retired employee requested the RCA to evict the tenant/non-applicant from the suit premises. Vide order dated 20-8-99, application was rejected only on the ground that the applicant retired from Government service in the year 1986, subsequently in the year 1991 the suit premises was let out by him to the tenant/non-applicant. With reference to Kunjulal Yadu v. Parasram Sharma, 2000 (3) M. P. H. T. 355 (KB) = 2000 (2) MPLJ 514 , a retired Government servant who acquires accommodation after his retirement and lets out the same to tenant, is entitled to invoke Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Therefore, there would not be any malafide on the part of the landlord/applicant in filing the application under Section 23-A of the Act. Therefore, there would not be any malafide on the part of the landlord/applicant in filing the application under Section 23-A of the Act. However, taking a contrary view, the RCA might have rejected it. However, after its rejection the landlord/applicant has instituted a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction in the Court of 8th ADJ, Bhopal. This further shows the bona fide on his part to seek eviction of the tenant/non-applicant. ( 5. ) IN the circumstances, the Tribunal has wrongly held that application under Section 23-I of the Act was on false or frivolous, vexatious grounds. In the circumstances landlord/applicant would not have been saddled with heavy compensatory cost. Before awarding the costs under Section 23-I of the Act, the Tribunal has to satisfy itself that the claim was false or vexatious to the knowledge of the applicant that interest of justice requires it and objection was put forward by defendant at the earliest opportunity. Section 23-I of the Act is analogous to Section 35-A of CPC. No such objection was ever raised by tenant/non-applicant in seeking leave to defend under Section 23-C of the Act and after the dismissal of application under Section 23-A of the Act vide order dated 20-8-99, filed application under Section 23-I of the Act. The order dated 20-8-99 is to the effect that application under Section 23-A being not maintainable is rejected, parties to bear their costs. The Tribunal having adjudicated the matter relating to cost ought not to have indulged itself on a subsequent motion under Section 23-I of the Act to proceed with the hearing of awarding a heavy compensatory cost. The Tribunal after pronouncing the order dated 20-8-99, retained no jurisdiction to adjudicate the subsequent grievance, if any of the tenant/non-applicant. In fact, the tenant/non-applicant has shown lack of bona fide in making application under Section 21-I of the Act. He himself has initiated the action to cause harassment to the landlord/applicant. ( 6. ) CONSEQUENTLY, revision is allowed. Order impugned passed by RCA in M. J. C. No. 5/99 is set aside. Tenant/non-applicant shall bear his costs and pay the costs of the landlord/applicant. Counsel fee as per rules or certificate (whichever is less ).