The central legal point established is the interpretation of Section 23J of the Accommodation Control Act, which categorizes a retired government servant as a landlord and the limitations on tenants' rights to challenge the validity of a sale deed.

N.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 15-7-2010 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Durg (briefly 'RCA') in case No. 10-A-90/ 2007-08 granting decree of eviction against the applicants under Section 23A of Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act').

2. Admittedly the non-applicant M.S. Bisen had purchased the suit accommodation on 20th March 2005 after his retirement on 30-4-98 from the post of Distt. Commandant Home Guards. Earlier proceeding under Section 23A of the Act were initiated on 12-7-2005. RCA granted the decree of eviction on 30-11-2005. There against the applicants preferred revision before this Court on the ground that the application under Section 23A of the Act filed before the RCA was premature and not maintainable in view of proviso to Section 23A of the Act wherein no application for eviction of the tenant was maintainable unless a period of one year had elapsed from the date of acquisition of the accommodation. The above revision was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 7-4-2008 and the eviction order passed on 30-11 -2005 was set aside.

3. Eviction petition in question was filed by the non-applicant after expiry of statutory period of one year under Section 23A of the Act. According to non-applicant, the applicants are residing in the suit accommodation as their tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. Earlier applicants were tenants of late M.C. Tripathi. The suit accommodation was purchased by non-applicant vide registered sale deed dated 28-3-2005 from Smt. Gangashree Tripathi i.e. wife of late M.C. Tripathi and as such he became its owner and applicant's landlord.

4. The accommodation was let for the residential purpose. He needs it bonfire for occupation as residence for himself and for his family members and he has no reasonably suitable accommodation for residence in the city of Durg.

5. The applicants applied under Section 23J of the Act for leave of the Court to contest application. Leave was granted.

6. The applicants have filed their written statement. Issues were framed. Parties led their evidence.

7. Learned RCA on appreciation of evidence led and material placed on record, held the non-applicant as a landlord within the meaning of Section 23J; relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties; non-applicant is in bonfire need of the suit accommodation for occupation for his residence for himself and for his family members and passed the eviction order. Hence this revision.

8. Shri R.K. Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the applicants, would submit, they were inducted as tenant in the suit accommodation by late M.C. Tripathi i.e. husband of Smt. Gangashree Tripathi; the agreement of sale was executed between late M.C. Tripathi and the applicants and the applicants have also paid Rs. 35,000/- as part consideration to him. Since sale deed was not executed in their favor they have preferred the suit for specific performance of contract against the legal representatives of deceased M.C. Tripathi which is pending consideration in the court of Civil Judge, Durg in the light of above fact; since there is a dispute of title between the parties, learned RCA has no jurisdiction to pass eviction order; Smt. Gangashree Tripathi not being the only legal representative of deceased M.C. Tripathi, had no right to transfer the suit accommodation and as such, no absolute title passes in non-applicant's favor; since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the order of eviction is bad. A legal plea was also raised regarding maintainability of the eviction petition under Section 23A of the Act on the ground that the non-applicant acquired the accommodation after his retirement and therefore, he is not landlord of special category within the meaning of Section 23J of the Act.

9. On the other hand, Shri Yashwant Tiwari, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the order and submitted that after taking into consideration e