ORDER 1. Heard. 2. It is not in dispute that Mohammed Ali, the husband of the applicant No.1 Smt. Fatima Sultana, since retired from service, had filed an application under Section 23-A of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred as the "Act") before the Rent Controlling Authority Dhamtari (hereinafter referred to as the R.C.A.) for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence. During the pendency of the proceedings before the R.CA, Mohammed Ali died and the applicant Smt. Fatima Sultana and her two daughters and a son were impleaded as Legal Representatives of Mohammed Ali By the impugned order, the learned R.C.A. has dismissed the application under Section 23-A of the Act on the ground that after the death of Mohammed Ali, no cause of action survived in favour of the widow Fatima Sultana and her daughters and son. 3. Shri RS. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is perverse since a widow falls under the special category of landlord mentioned in Section-23(J) of the Act and was entitled to pursue the proceedings on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence, for her own self as also for her daughters and son. Reliance was placed on Harbans Singh Vs. Smt. Margrat G. Bhngardive. 4. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for non-applicant does not oppose this Civil Revision and conceded that the order passed by the R.C.A. was not inconformity with law. 5. Having heard the rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is perverse since a widow clearly falls within the definition of Landlord under Section 23-J of the Act and can pursue the proceedings before the R.CA. on the ground of her bona fide requirement for residence. In Dhanna lal Vs. Kalawatibai and other, it was further held by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court that : "Where a widow who belongs to classified category of landlord under Section-23-J along with her two major sons arrayed as co-plaintiffs filed eviction proceedings before Rent Controlling Authority, on ground of bona fide requirement of major sons who required suit premises for starting their business, such requirement clearly falling within purview ofSection-23-A(b), the proceedings initiated before Rent Controlling Authority, is maintainable. Merely because major sons/co-owners do not fall within category of 'landlord' as defined by S-23.J it cannot be said that special procedure provided by S-23-A of Act is not available and that eviction proceedings initiated before Rent Controlling Authority suffer from want of jurisdictional error." In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The R.C.A., Dhamtari shall decide the application under Section 23-A of the Act in accordance with law. It is directed that the parties shall appear before the R.C.A., Dhamtari on 3.4.2007. No further notice shall be required. Revision Allowed.