ORDER Heard. The applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 27.06.2006 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (R.C.A.), Bilaspur in Case No. 3/A-90(6)12002-03. Learned counsel for the applicant has, during his arguments, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since the application filed by the non-applicant before the R.C.A. on 2.6.2003 does not disclose a ground for eviction of the tenant under Section 23-A of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). I have heard the rival contentions at length on the aforesaid objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. Section 23-A which falls under Chapter III-A of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is a special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement which enures to the benefit of a landlord who fulls within the category of the persons, mentioned in Section 23-J of the Act. It provides a speedy remedy to the special class of persons, enumerated under Section 23-J of the Act, to seek eviction of the tenant on ground of bona fide requirement for residence. Section 23-A of the Act read as under: "23-A. Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely- (a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residentail accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned Explanation - For the purposes of this clause "accommodation let for residential purposes" includes- (i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for any non-residential purpose. (ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purpose. (b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner there of or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. Provided that where a person who is a landlord has acquired any accommodation or any interest therein by transfer no application for eviction of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisition." It is thus clear that a landlord falling within the category of Section 23-J of the Act may file application on the ground of bona fide requirement for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. The non-applicant-landlord filed an application under Section 23-A of the Act on 2.6.2003 before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application read as under: Grounds No.4 and 5 mentioned above do not even have a whisper that the landlord needs the accommodation bona fide for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family. Shri K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Counsel for non-applicant had next pointed out that although a specific ground for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence for herself or for any member of her family is not disclosed by the application filed before the Rent Controlling Authority, yet paragraphs 7 and 11 of the notice sent by the landlord to the applicant-tenant by itself constitutes a valid ground under Section 23-A of the Act. Learned counsel referred to paragraphs 7 and II of the said notice which read as under;- The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the non applicant Cannot be countenanced. Learned counsel referred to paragraphs 7 and II of the said notice which read as under;- The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the non applicant Cannot be countenanced. Even otherwise, I do not find that a specific ground under Section 23-A of the Act is disclosed by the notice. Paragraphs 7 & II do not specifically mention whether the suit house is required bona fide for the residence of the non-applicant. It also does not mention the name of the son for whom the suit house is required for residence. The notice also does not make a mention that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in the city or town concerned for this purpose. I am of the considered opinion that unless a specific ground available under Section 23-A of the Act is taken in the application filed before the R.C.A. a non-specific reference in the notice would not by itself constitute a valid ground for eviction of the tenant. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no ground) under Section 23-A of the Act having been disclosed, the application dated 2.6.2003 filed by the landlord before the R.C.A. was liable to outright rejection, and therefore, the impugned order being contrary to law is liable to be set aside. In the result the Civil Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.06.2006 is set aside on the ground that the application dated 2.6.2003 under Section 23-A of Act does not disclose any ground for eviction under Section 23A of the Act. Revision Allowed. q