Judgment ( 1. ) THIS second appeal under Section 100, CPC was admitted on 5-2-04 for consideration of the following substantial question of law:- "whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below for ejectment under Section 12 (1) (f) of M. P. Accommodation control Act is without jurisdiction, as the landlord is widow and is covered under Section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control act ?" ( 2. ) APPELLANT herein claimed to be tenant of the suit premises situated in ward No. 11, Nikasa road, Vidisha. The suit premises consists of a shop of three "chasma" and a "kotha". Various grounds were raised and the suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide need of her major son who was unemployed and needed the suit premises for starting a hotel business in the style of bhojnalaya for her son. That apart, ground for non-payment of rent and sub-letting of suit premises by original tenant defendant No. 2 Shikharchand was also alleged. Suit has been decreed by both the courts and the decree is assailed in the present appeal. ( 3. ) EVEN though the appeal was admitted on the question framed as indicated herein above on 5-2-04 an application I. A. No. 6624/05 was filed on 28-4-05 seeking framing of certain additional issues. This Court on 24-6-05 has indicated that the said application shall be considered at the time of final i hearing. Accordingly, before proceeding to decide the appeal on merit, said application filed under Section 100 (5), CPC is being considered. , ( 4. ) A perusal of the application indicated that petitione: wants additional grounds A, B, C indicated therein to be framed and decided in this appeal. When the appeal was admitted on 5-2-04 it was after hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after considering the substantial questions already framed in the memo of appeal. A perusal of the memo of appeal indicates that in ground D substantial questions vide ABCDEFGHIJ were indicated and after considering the questions framed the court only framed one question which is based on the proposed question G and H. As far as questions now proposed in la. No. 6624/05 namely questions Nos. ABCD are concerned, the same questions without any change were the questions proposed in page 15 and 16 of the memo of appeal vide questions Nos. ABCD. No. 6624/05 namely questions Nos. ABCD are concerned, the same questions without any change were the questions proposed in page 15 and 16 of the memo of appeal vide questions Nos. ABCD. All the four questions now proposed in identical terms without any difference are indicated in memo of appeal and at the time of framing the questions while admitting the appeal on 5-2-04 this court did not deem it proper to admit the appeal on the said questions. The same questions are now proposed to be framed vide LA. No. 6624/05. Once the questions were already proposed and rejected at the time of admission on 5-2-04 the same cannot now be considered again. Accordingly, finding no justification for framing any additional questions LA. No. 6624/05 stands rejected. ( 5. ) AS far as the substantial question framed is concerned, the same is based on the ground that plaintiff is a widow and falls within the special category of landlord as contemplated under Section 23-J of the M. P. Accommodation control Act, 1961 and, therefore, it is only the Rent Controlling Authority who has jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Chapter III-A under Section 23-A and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. It may be indicated that the special provision as contemplated under Chapter III-A was inserted by Amending Act 27/83 on 16-08-1983 and further Section 23-J was amended by Amending Act no. 7/85 w. e. f. 16-01-1985. The definition of the "landlord" for the purpose of chapter III-A was incorporated by Amending Act No. 7/85 w. e. f. 16-01-1985. The question is whether the said provision will be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. ( 6. ) A perusal of the record indicates that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff Smt. Keshar Bai on 26-10-1978. In the plaint filed she is not indicated as a widow. The plaint indicates that she is wife of Shri Ram Singh Sahu and the suit was never filed by her in her capacity as a widow. ) A perusal of the record indicates that the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff Smt. Keshar Bai on 26-10-1978. In the plaint filed she is not indicated as a widow. The plaint indicates that she is wife of Shri Ram Singh Sahu and the suit was never filed by her in her capacity as a widow. She had filed the suit claiming herself to be the owner of the suit property and sought eviction of the defendant on the grounds of bonafide need, arrears of rent and sub-letting, when the suit was filed in the year 1978 the provisions of Section 23-A and section 23-J were not incorporated in the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. In LA. No. 3054/05, it is indicated by the plaintiff that her husband Ram singh Sahu died on 20-08-1993 as per death certificate Annexure-A i. e. , during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court. ( 7. ) IT is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid narration of the facts that the suit was never filed by a widow claiming eviction of the suit property on the grounds contemplated under Sections 23-A, B of the M. P. Accommodation control Act but it was the suit composite in nature filed by the plaintiff on the grounds contemplated under Section 12 (1) (a), (b) and (f ). Even the Appellate court has passed decree under Section 12 (1) (b) and (f ). Merely because during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below plaintiffs husband died and she became widow, the jurisdiction of the Trial Court is not taken away as the suit was never instituted by a widow and the ejectment is not only under the provisions of Section 12 (1) (f) but is also under the provisions of Section 12 (1) (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar V. Babulal and another, 1998 (l) JLJ 311 (FB) in Para 8 has considered the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court and has observed as under:- 8. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar V. Babulal and another, 1998 (l) JLJ 311 (FB) in Para 8 has considered the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court and has observed as under:- 8. If the landlord defined in Section 23-J, wants to avail the benefit of Chapter III-A then they can maintain a suit for eviction of a tenant before the Rent Controlling Authority on the ground of bona fide requirement and in case, they do not want to avail the special forum created under the Chapter III-A and want to invoke the ordinary Civil Court remedy then that forum will be available to them and their suit will not be dismissed on the ground that they should invoke the remedy provided under Chapter III-A. It will be open for the Landlords to file a civil suit before the Civil Court on the basis of the bona fide requirement or on any other grounds mentioned in Section 12 of the Act. Similarly, it will be open for the landlords defined in Section 23-J to maintain a suit before the rent Controlling Authority on the ground of reasonable bona fide requirement. The forum is for the benefit of the landlords defined under Section 23-J and that does not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Court, if the landlords so choose. It is the choice of the landlord and it cannot be restricted that he can only avail the remedy for eviction on the ground of reasonable bona fide requirement before that forum alone. ( 8. ) EVEN though Shri K. S. Tomar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant placing heavy reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, 2002 (3) SCC 717 = 2002 (2) M. P. H. T. 298 (SC) submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter and reliance was also placed by him on judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Nandlal Vs. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, 2002 (3) SCC 717 = 2002 (2) M. P. H. T. 298 (SC) submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter and reliance was also placed by him on judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Nandlal Vs. Mangibai, 2006 (2) MPWN 28 = 2006 (2)M. P. H. T. 300 emphasised that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the fact remains that all these judgments including the Full Bench judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case for the following reasons:- (i) Present is not a suit filed by a widow solely based on her bona fide need but (ii) Present suit was instituted by a owner of the property, who at the relevant time was not a widow and she had claimed eviction on various grounds as contemplated under section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. ( 9. ) THE question involved in this appeal is considered by a Bench of this court of Munnalal V. Subhash, 1997 (1) MPWN 31. It has been held in the aforesaid judgment that Civil Courts had jurisdiction in case when the suit is instituted by a person at a time when he does not fall in the special category of landlord as defined in Section 23-J but comes in the said category subsequently during pendency of the suit. In the said case also a suit was filed before the Civil court by one Smt. Prabha Devi who at the relevant time was a Govt, servant and retired during the pendency of the suit. Similar argument raised with regard to jurisdiction of the Civil Court was rejected and it was held that at the time of institution of the suit, Civil Court had jurisdiction and the jurisdiction will not be taken away merely because on a subsequent date the landlord falls in the special category as contemplated under Section 23-J. Similarly, in the present case also, on the date when the suit was instituted respondent Kesarbai was not widow and civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The judgment in the case of nandlal (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable on fact. The judgment in the case of nandlal (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable on fact. Similarly the argument advanced by Shri Tomar to the effect that the judgment of the full bench in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) stands over-ruled by the Supreme Court by implication in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra) is also of no consequence in this appeal as the facts of the present case are entirely different. This is a case where on the date of institution of the suit Civil Court had jurisdiction and if subsequently the respondent Kesarbai became a widow during the pendency of the suit it cannot be held that the Civil Courts jurisdiction is taken away. That being so, the judgments relied upon by Shri Tomar are not applicable in the present case. ( 10. ) SIMILAR question was considered by this court in the case of Bagmal rajmal Singhai V. Kamal Kumar Mukundrao @ Balmukund, 1998 (1) MPLJ 98 and in Paras 5 and 6 it has been so observed in the aforesaid case:- 5. Both the Courts noticed that the suit was filed on 20-4-1983 whereas the Act conferring jurisdiction for specified categories of landlords on Rent Controlling Authority, came into force on 16-8-1983. It was noticed that there was no provision for transfer of the pending suits to the Rent Controlling Authority. This being so, there was no question of bar of jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings initiated before the commencement of Act No. 27 of 1983, enforced from 16-8-1983. Even otherwise, the appellant got the benefit of regular trial as also of two appeals. No prejudice is thus, shown to have been caused. The contention of jurisdiction is thus, manifestly meritless and deserves to be rejected. 6. In these facts and circumstances, it becomes luculent that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred in terms of Sections 23-A, 23-J and Section 45 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. ( 11. ) IN this case also, appellant had the benefit of regular trial, a first appeal and now this appeal and no prejudice is shown to have been established. That being so, the objections now raised with regard to jurisdiction is unsustainable both on law and fact. ( 12. ( 11. ) IN this case also, appellant had the benefit of regular trial, a first appeal and now this appeal and no prejudice is shown to have been established. That being so, the objections now raised with regard to jurisdiction is unsustainable both on law and fact. ( 12. ) CONSIDERING the same, the question framed is answered by holding that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is in accordance with law and the present suit is not covered under the provisions of Section 23-A of m. P. Accommodation Control Act. Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference in the appeal, the same stands dismissed without any order so as to cost. Certified copy as per rules. Second Appeal dismissed.