( 1 ) THIS judgement shall also dispose of Civil Revision No. 202/1985 (Kedarnath Gupta v. Smt. Sushila Devi Somani ). In both the Civil Revisions, filed under S. 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (as amended by Act No. 27 of 1983) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), both the applicants have challenged the legality of the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, on 3-6-1985 in Case No. 336/83-84 (90) (7 ).

( 2 ) THIS is a battle between the landlord and tenant. One Gopal Somani was the landlord of the non-residential suit accommodation, situate in the area of Deedwana Oli, Lashkar, Gwalior. He inducted one Kedarnath (hereinafter addressed as 'tenant') in the suit premises as his tenant, on 22-6-1979, for a period of 5 years, by a registered lease deed, on a monthly rent of Rs. 750. 00 p. m. Landlord, Gopal Somani, died on 19-5-1981 leaving behind him, his widow, Smt. Sushila Devi, and two major sons, Krishna Kumar Somani and Shiv Kumar Somani. The period of 5 years as mentioned in the lease deed expired on 21-6-1984. The widow of the deceased landlord filed an application under S. 23-A (b) of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior, on 13-7-1984 praying for the eviction of the tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for starting cloth business for her major sons. The tenant within time filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority for permission to defend and therein he raised several grounds. One of them was that the applicant-widow has no right to file the present proceeding because after the death of the landlord, his both major sons along with the widow have inherited the suit property and all the three are the landlords. Inter alia, the tenant also raised a plea that the applicant has no right under law to present the present application, as the premises are not required by her but the requirement is of her sons. The tenant also filed an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act and therein raised an objection that the registered lease deed contains an arbitration clause; hence the ejectment proceedings be stayed.

( 3 ) THE Rent Controlling Authority (hereafter referred to as 'the Authority') in the impugned order held :- (I) The suit premises were jointly inherited by both his major sons and the widow, and the widow alone has no right under law to file the present proceeding : hence, it be transferred to Civil Court. (II) Provisions of Arbitration Act are not applicable in a proceeding under the Act and hence the proceeding, as prayed for, cannot be stayed. In Civil Revision No. 157/1985, Smt. Sushila Devil the widow of the original Landlord, has challenged conclusion No. (i), and in C. R. No. 202/1985 the tenant has challanged conclusion No. (ii), mentioned hereinabove, of the impugned order.

( 4 ) HISTORY of the Rent Control Law of this State is interesting, Cls. (e) and (f) of Sub- Sec. (1) of S. 12 of the Act 1961, contain grounds for eviction of the tenant on the basis of bona fide requirement of accommodation for residential or non-residential purposes, respectively. It is a suit in a Civil Court which is required to be filed for such eviction on one or more grounds permitting eviction. The Act of 1961 was amended by the Amendment Act of 1983, primarily providing for the expeditious trial of eviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In substance, the effect of this amendment of 1983 was to omit or delete Cls. (e) and (f) from Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 12 of the parent Act of 1961, as well as Sub-Sections (4), (5) and (6) of S. 12; to amend S. 13; to omit Ss. 17, 20-A and 20-AA and to insert a new Chapter III-A in the parent Act containing Ss. 23-A to 23-I, in order to provide for eviction of tenants on grounds of bona fide requirement, etc. The net result of the amendment made by Amendment Act of 1983 was that