Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 60 (MP)

Rupesh Faujdar v. Pradeep Kumar Tamrakar

2017-01-11

ANJULI PALO

body2017
ORDER : This Civil Revision has been filed under section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity Act of 1961) to hold that the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by person other than the “Landlord” as defined under section 23-J of Act of 1961, and to set aside order dated 20-6-2016 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, District Satna in case No. 5-A/90/15-16. 2. The applicants/tenants contend that, the present respondent representing himself to be the “Landlord” moved an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the applicants/tenants on the ground that the duration of the tenancy has lapsed and appellants became illegal occupants of the premises, but the Rent Controlling Authority has passed the impugned order dated 20-6-2016 without jurisdiction. Respondent does not fall in the category of ‘Landlord’ as per the provision of section 23-J of Act of 1961. Applicants further submitted that for recovery of the possession minimum period of 2 months is stipulated under section 23-J. But in the impugned order only 15 days time is granted to the applicants to vacate the premises, failing which the possession shall be removed with the help of Police. Hence, the applicants prayed to set aside impugned order dated 20-8-2016 passed by Act of 1961 without jurisdiction. 3. Heard the learned counsel for parties at length. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants and contended that Act of 1961 closed the right of the applicants for cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses, matter was posted for final arguments, thus revision is liable to be dismissed. 4. Perused the record. 5. Regarding the objection raised by the applicants for the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority, section 23-J of Act of 1961. 4. Perused the record. 5. Regarding the objection raised by the applicants for the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority, section 23-J of Act of 1961. For the purposes of Chapter-III-A “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.” 6. Annexure A/1 is the application under section 23-A of Act of 1961 preferred by the respondent. In this application the respondent did not state that his case is covered under any category of ‘Landlord’ as prescribed under Section 23-J of Act of 1961. 7. The section purports to give a special meaning to the expression ‘Landlord’ for the purposes of Chapter-III-A, i.e. for the purpose of Section 23-A to 23-1 of Act of 1961. These Landlords are distinct from the remaining Landlords who deserves the benefit of special procedure on account of their need. The text laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lai Bhargava, (1984) 2 SCC 75 : AIR 1984 SC 967 ; that for permissible classification, the Landlords for conferral of the benefit of special procedure is fully satisfied by section 23-J. 8. In case of Kailash Chandra v. Dr. Kamla, 1998 (1) M.P.L.J. 110 : 1997 (2) JLJ 122 , it was held that: “The law says that a Landlord as defined under this section, shall be entitled to evict the tenant on one or more ground mentioned under section 23(A) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act.” 9. In case of B. Johnson Bernard v. C.S. Naidu, 1985 M.P.L.J. 675 : 1985 JLJ 739, it is held that: “Under this Section a Landlord has given a simple, unequivocal, unambiguous and clear definition. A Landlord means a Landlord who is a retired servant of any government. Also includes other categories.” 10. In case of B. Johnson Bernard v. C.S. Naidu, 1985 M.P.L.J. 675 : 1985 JLJ 739, it is held that: “Under this Section a Landlord has given a simple, unequivocal, unambiguous and clear definition. A Landlord means a Landlord who is a retired servant of any government. Also includes other categories.” 10. In the light of the above principles, it cannot be held that the case of the respondent comes under the category of “Landlord” as defined under section 23-J of Act of 1961, therefore, Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order for the eviction of the applicants/tenants. 11. Further sub-section (2) Clause (a) of section 23 of Act of 1961 specifically provides that, where as order for the eviction of a tenant is made on the grounds specified in Clause (b) of section 23-A, the Landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof, before the expiration of period of two months from the date of the order. But, in the impugned order only 15 days time has been granted to the applicants to vacate the premises. Clause (b) is of section 23-A is applicable because the accommodation is situate in city of Jabalpur. 12. On the above mentioned grounds, it is found that impugned order passed without jurisdiction and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, this revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside.