Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a revision filed by the landlady under Section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act (for short "act") against an order dated 26-2-2000, passed by learned Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Eviction Case no. 31-90 (7)/1/97. Facts in brief are these. ( 2. ) PETITIONER is a landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the Act. It is in this capacity, ie. , landlord falling in the special category of landlords as defined under Section 23- J ibid, the petitioner filed an application claiming respondents eviction from the suit accommodation under Section 23-A of the act. The eviction was claimed on the ground of her personal residential need. It was also contended that she has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation of her own in city and hence, need to claim eviction of the respondent from the suit accommodation. The defence was that of denial of petitioners title to the suit house, tenancy and need. In other words, the respondent as non-applicant in the application denied petitioners ownership over the suit house, and in consequence also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se them. The respondent then asserted ownership of himself over the suit house and contended that application for eviction be dismissed on these grounds taken in defence. The learned R. C. A. (Rent controlling Authority) by his long order running in 18 pages dismissed the application essentially or rather one of the main ground that petitioner has failed to establish her ownership over the suit property. It is against this dismissal, the landlady has come up in revision. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri S. M. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused record of the case, I am inclined to allow the revision and remand the case. ( 5. ) IN my considered opinion, the learned Rent Controlling Authority committed an error of law in holding that petitioner, i. e. , landlady has failed to prove her ownership. Indeed, it was not at all necessary to prove it for claiming eviction under Section 23-A of the Act. The learned Authority failed to see the distinction between the requirement of Section 12 (1) (e) and that of Section 23-A ibid. Indeed, it was not at all necessary to prove it for claiming eviction under Section 23-A of the Act. The learned Authority failed to see the distinction between the requirement of Section 12 (1) (e) and that of Section 23-A ibid. It is only when the eviction is sought by the landlord on the ground covered under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Act he/she is required to prove his/her ownership but when the eviction is sought under Section 23-A ibid, the same is not necessary. The reason is that the words "if he is owner thereof are not to be found in Section 23-A. In other words, the words "if he is owner thereof are found in Section 12 (1) (e) ibid but they are conspicuously not found in Section 23-A ibid. It is this departure of words from Section 23-A ibid, it is not obligatory upon the landlord to prove his/her ownership. The only requirement to maintain the application under Section 23-A of the Act is to plead and prove that applicant, i. e. , landlord satisfies the requirement of section 23-J ibid and secondly, there exists relationship of landlord and tenant inter se parties. Once these two requirements are proved by the landlord, he/she is entitled to file and prosecute the application for claiming eviction provided he/she is able to make out a case of bonafide need. ( 6. ) UNFORTUNATELY, the aforesaid fact was not taken note of by the learned Rent Controlling Authority and instead he went on to devote all his time and energy in deciding whether landlady has established her title over the suit land or not. It was an erroneous approach for deciding the issue under section 23-A ibid. It vitiates the order impugned. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of aforesaid discussion, the revision succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to rent Controlling Authority for deciding three questions :- "1. Whether applicant falls within the special category of landlord as specified under Section 23-J of the Act ? 2. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists on facts and evidence led by the parties ? 3. Whether a case of bonafide need as contemplated under section 23-A of the Act is made out on facts/evidence led by landlady ?" ( 8. 2. Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists on facts and evidence led by the parties ? 3. Whether a case of bonafide need as contemplated under section 23-A of the Act is made out on facts/evidence led by landlady ?" ( 8. ) IT may be observed that the aforementioned three questions would be decided keeping into consideration the requirement of Sections 23-J, 23-A and 23-D of the Act. It is further directed that the authority will avoid verbosity in his judgment and only the case will confine to issues arising out of the case. Let the proceedings be completed within two months from the date of parties appearance. Notice of proceedings will be issued by R. C. A. to non-applicant because in this revision none appeared despite service. Record of the case be sent back forthwith. Petitioner to appear before R. C. A. on 8-9-2003. C. C. within a week. Civil Revision allowed.