( 1 ) THIS case, on a reference by a learned single Judge of this Court, was placed before this Full Bench, for consideration and opinion of a question of law as to the ambit and scope of S. 23-J read with S. 23-A of the Madhva Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Act No. 41 of 1961 ).

( 2 ) THE necessary facts giving rise to the legal question are not in serious dispute and lie in a narrow compass. The non-applicant is a co-sharer-owner of the suit premises along with her two major sons, she being the widow of her late husband G. D. Bhingardive who had purchased the same. The non-applicant being a widow initiated proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur, by filing an application under S. 23-A (a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of tenant, the applicant herein, from the premises in his occupation originally on the plea that the said premises were required bona fide by her for occupation as residence for her two married sons and their children. The landlady/non-applicant being a widow claimed that she belongs to the special category of landlord defined in S. 23-J (iii) of the Act and, therefore, she was entitled to pursue her remedy in summary proceedings as provided in Chapter III-A of the Act, before the Dent Controlling Authority on whom jurisdiction is conferred by virtue of the provisions contained in S. 23-A of the Act.

( 3 ) THE tenant applicant entered appearance and besides denying the bona fide requirement as alleged by the landlady also took objection that the alleged ground of bona fide requirement of accommodation for residence of married sons of the landlady/non-applicant was not covered by S. 23-A (a) and the Rent Controlling Authority having no jurisdiction, the landlady could not be permitted to take recourse to the special summary procedure provided in Chapter IIIA of the Act. Thereupon the landlady/non-applicant moved an application for amendment of her original eviction application proposing an amendment to the effect that the premises in question were not only required bona fide by her for occupation as residence for her married sons and their families but also for her own residence. The Rent Controlling Authority allowed the said amendment by his order dated 28-12-1987, overruled the objection and continued the eviction proceedings.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the Rent Controlling Authority, the tenant/applicant preferred Revision before this Court under S. 23-E of the Act. The Revision came up for hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court before whom the learned counsel appearing for the tenant/applicant assailed the jurisdiction of the Rent Controlling Authority by contending that in the present case the advantage of the special forum provided under Chapter III-A of the Act is available only to the widow in case she required bona fide the residential accommodation for her own occupation as specified in Clause (a) of S. 23-A because she alone falls in the category of 'landlord' within the meaning of S. 23-J of the Act and not her married sons and their children. It was, therefore, urged that the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an application of the widow/landlady for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide need of accommodation for residence of her married sons or even for joint need of the accommodation for herself and her married sons in which event the remedy is by way of civil suit under S. 12 of the Act.

( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned single Judge noticed conflicting precedents and divergent views of different Single Benches of this Court on the aforesaid legal controversy. In Smt. Sushila Devi v. Kedarnath Gupta, AIR 1987 Madh Pra 65 : 1987 MPRCJ 197, Rampal Singh, J. while construing the provisions of Chapter III-A of the Act took the view that incorporation of S. 23-J in the parent Act, by way of amendment in 1985, is onl