Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 453 (MP)

Ramji Sharma v. Lalji Sen

2012-04-26

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2012
Judgment This revision is directed against the order dated 13th October, 2009 passed in Case No. 03/A-90/2006-2007 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa, by which the order of eviction is issued against the petitioners. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the respondent approached the Rent Controlling Authority claiming himself to be a specified landlord, by making an application under section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), seeking eviction of the petitioners. In the application it was contended that the respondent was serving in some private organization from where he has retired and since he has no source of income, he is willing to establish his business in the demise premise which was let out to the petitioner No. 1 for starting clinic. Such an application was opposed by the petitioners but by the order impugned dated 13-10-2009, the said application has been allowed by the Rent Controlling Authority. The order of eviction has been issued. Therefore this revision is required to be filed. 3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners is not present but with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the provisions of the Act are examined. Section 23-J prescribes the definition of 'specified landlord' for the purposes of making application of Chapter III-A of the Act. The said provision is reproduced for ready reference :- "For the purposes of this Chapter, 'landlord' means a landlord who is - (i) A retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services; or (ii) A retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government; or (iii) A widow or a divorced wife; or (iv) Physically handicapped person; or (v) A servant of any Government including a member of defence services who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on payment of a penal rent on his posting to such a place." 4. It is specifically prescribed under section 23-A of the Act that a specified landlord may make an application to the Rent Controlling Authority for passing of an order of eviction against the tenant, who has been let out the accommodation for residential purposes/non-residential purposes, in case the said accommodation is bona fidely required by the specified landlord. Section 45 of the Act specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of such an application to be made under section 23-A of the Act. A bare perusal of said provision will make it clear that the Rent Controlling Authority is empowered to take action on an application if made by the specified landlord for issuance of an order of eviction. Only to that extent the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. For the purposes of grant of decree of eviction, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically prescribed under section 12(1) of the Act. Section 11 (a) of the Act specifies certain provisions which are not to be made applicable in case of seeking eviction of a tenant, if the same is applicable with respect to the specified landlord as defined under section 23-J of the Act. Thus, it is abundantly clear that only those landlords as are defined under section 23-J of the Act are eligible to approach the Rent Controlling Authority for passing of an order of eviction of a tenant, if a case is made out. The Rent Controlling Authority would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application if made by any other landlord, not covered under the definition of 'specified landlord' given in section 23-J of the Act. 5. It is clear that the respondent was not a specified landlord as defined under section 23-J of the Act and was not competent to approach the Rent Controlling Authority for passing of an order of eviction. The Rent Controlling Authority was in fact having no jurisdiction to pass any order of eviction against the petitioners. Though such grounds are not raised in revision petition nor the same has been entertained on these grounds, but this Court is required to examine the validity of the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, including the jurisdiction of the said authority. 6. Since the respondent was not a specified landlord, the application made by him before the Rent Controlling Authority was not maintainable. 6. Since the respondent was not a specified landlord, the application made by him before the Rent Controlling Authority was not maintainable. This revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority is hereby set aside. However, the respondent would be at liberty to approach the Civil Court in case he still have a claim of eviction of tenant, and while making such claim before appropriate forum, the order passed by this Court will not come in his way. 7. The revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.