Back
1998 (1) JLJ 311
(FULL BENCH)
A.K. Mathur, C.J. Deepak Misra and S.K. Kulshrestha, JJ.
Ashok Kumar v. Baboolal and another
Civil Revn. No. 708 of 1995; on reference by learned Single Judge;
Decided on 5.3.1998.
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-J - classification of landlords under -- is valid. 1985 JLJ 793 relied on. [Para 2
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 23-J -- M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 - S. 12 (2) -- eviction suit already pending on various grounds -- landlord of special category could n1thdraw civil suit on bona fide need and file application for eviction under S.23-A. 1986 JLJ 23 (FB) relied on. [Para 2
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 11-A, 45, 12, 23-A and 23 -J Chap. III and III-A –landlord of special category -- may file application for eviction either under S.12 (1) (a) or (f) or may take resort of S. 23-A - S.11-A or 45 does not bar jurisdiction of civil Court.
The idea is that any of the landlords being a retired Government servant or a member of defence services or a retired servant of a company, owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government, a widow or a divorced wife; or a physically handicapped person etc., if such persons require premises for bona fide requirement then on that count, they can choose the forum of Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter, III-A. But, the learned Single Judge has construed section 11-A to mean that since a special forum has been constituted for the landlords then those landlords can only invoke the particular forum i.e. Rent Controlling Authority for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. 1989 MPLJ 281 overruled. [Paras 3 & 4
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 11-A, Chaps. III and III-A - provisions under Chap. III and III-A -- do not apply to each other. 1989 MPLJ 281 overruled. [Para 4
(6) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 12(1)(e)(f), 23-A and 23-J -- landlord of special category under S. 23-J -- has a choice either to seek eviction under S. 12 (1) (e) and (f) before civil Court or file application for such eviction before RCA under S. 23-A. 1989 MPLJ 281 overruled. [Para 5
(7) Interpretation of Statutes -- restrictive provision -- has to be construed strictly. 1966 JLJ 1022 (SC) followed. [Para 6
(8) Jurisdiction -- provision curbing general jurisdiction -- has to receive -- strict interpretation. 1966 JLJ 1022 (SC) and JT 1998 (1) SC 370 followed. [Para 6
(9) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss. 45, 23-J Chap. III-A. -- once landlord invokes jurisdiction of RCA in eviction matter -- civil Court will have no jurisdiction -- it does not mean that landlord of special category cannot seek eviction from civil Court. 1986 JLJ 23 (FB) relied on. [Para 6
(10) Precedent -- no conflict between B. Johnson Bernard (1985 JLJ 793) and Paraschand (1986 JLJ 23). [Para 7
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-14 & e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k ¼la‘kks/ku 27@83 rFkk 7@85½ vf/kfu;e & ‘kDR;k/khu gSa] bl vuqPNsn ds vf/kdkjkrhr ugha gSaA 1985 ts ,y ts 793 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 2
¼2½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 23&´& ds v/khu Hkw&Lokfeksa dk oxhZdj.k & fof/kekU; gSA 1985 ts ,y ts 793 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 2
¼3½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 23&d &e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k ¼la‘kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 1983 & /kkjk 12¼2½ & fofHkUu vk/kkjksa ij csn[kyh dk okn igys gh yafcr & fo‘ks"k çoxZ ds Hkw&Lokeh }kjk okLrfod vko‘;drk ij vk/kkfjr okn leiâr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk rFkk /kkjk 23&d ds v/khu vkosnu Qkby fd;k tk ldrk FkkA 1986 ts ,y ts 23 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 2
¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 11&d] 45] 12] 23&d rFkk 23&´] v/;k; 3 rFkk 3&d&fo‘ks"k çoxZ dk Hkw&Lokeh & csn[kyh ds fy, /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼d½ vFkok ¼p½ ds v/khu vkosnu dj ldrk gS ;k /kkjk 23&d dk vkJ; ys ldrk gS & /kkjk 11&d vFkok 45 }kjk flfoy U;k;ky; dk otZu ugha gSaA
/kkj.kk ;g gS fd dksbZ Hkh Hkw&Lokeh lsokfuo`Ùk ljdkjh lsod vFkok j{kk lsokvksa dk lnL; vFkok dsanzh; ;k jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo dh ;k mlds }kjk fu;af=r fdlh daiuh dk lsod( fo/kok vFkok fofPNUu&fookg iRuh vFkok ‘kkjhfjd fu%‘kDrrk ls xzLr O;fDr vkfn gSa vkSj ;fn ,sls O;fDr;ksa okLrfod vko‘;drk ds fy, ifjlj dh vko‘;drk gS rc bl vk/kkj ij os v/;k; 3&d ds v/khu HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; dk p;u dj ldrs gSaA fdarq fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us /kkjk 11&d dk vFkkZUo;u bl vFkZ esa fd;k gS fd D;ksafd bu Hkw&Lokfeksa ds fy, fo‘ks"k U;k;ky; xfBr gS] os Hkw&Lokeh okLrfod vko‘;drk ds vk/kkj ij vfHk/kkjh dh csn[kyh ds fy, dsoy fof‘k"V U;k;ky; vFkkZr~ HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh dk gh vkJ; ys ldrs gSa rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk oftZr gSA 1989 ,e ih ,y ts 281 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 3 rFkk 4
¼5½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 11&d] v/;k; 3 rFkk 3&d&v/;k; 3 rFkk 3&d ds v/khu mica/k & ,dnwljs ij ykxw ugha gksrsA 1989 ,e ih ,y ts 281 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 4
¼6½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼M-½ ¼p½] 23&´ & /kkjk 23&´ ds v/khu fo‘ks"k çoxZ esa Hkw&Lokeh dks & /kkjk 12¼1½ ¼M-½ vkSj ¼p½ ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k csn[kyh dh bZIlk djus vFkok ,slh csn[kyh ds fy, HkkM+k fu;a=d çkf/kdkjh ds le{k /kkjk 23&d ds v/khu vkosnu Qkby djus dk fodYi çkIr gSA 1989 ,e ih ,y ts 281 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 5
¼7½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & fuc±/kudkjh mica/k & vFkkZUo;u vfrfu;efu"Bk ls fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1966 ts ,y ts 1022 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 6
¼8½ vf/kdkfjrk & lk/kkj.k vf/kdkfjrk fuc±f/kr djus okyk mica/k&vFkkZUou vfrfu;efu"Bk ls fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1966 ts ,y ts 1022 ¼mPPre U;k-½ rFkk ts Vh 1998¼1½ ,l lh 370 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 6
¼9½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 45] 23&´] v/;k; 3&d&Hkw&Lokeh }kjk csn[kyh ds fo"k; esa ,d ckj tc HkkM+k fu;a=.k çkf/kdkjh dh vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; fy;k tkrk gS & flfoy U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksxh & bldk vFkZ ;g ugha gS fd fo‘ks"k çoxZ dk Hkw&Lokeh flfoy U;k;ky; ls csn[kyh dh bZIlk ugha dj ldrkA 1986 ts ,y ts 23 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 6
¼10½ iwoZ U;k; & ch- tkUlu cukZMZ ¼1985 ts ,y ts 793½ rFkk ikjlpan ¼1986 ts ,y ts 23½ esa dksbZ la?k"kZ ugha gSaA ¿iSjk 7
Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a reference made by the learned Single Judge on the ground that there is a conflict between the two Full Benches' judgments; therefore, the matter should be referred to Larger Bench.
2. At the very outset, we may mention that it is not correct to say that there is a conflict between the two Full Benches judgments of this Court, i.e. in 1985 JLJ 793 = 1985 MPLJ 675 (B. Johnson Bernard v. C.S. Naidu) and 1986 JLJ 23 = 1987 MPLJ 137 (Paraschand v. Hemant Kumar). B. Johnson Bernard (supra) is a judgment by the Division Bench and Paraschand (supra) is a judgment given by the Full Bench therefore, it is wrong to say that there was a conflict between two Full Benches' decisions. In B. Johnson Bernard's case (supra), the Amending Act No. 27/83 and Act No. 7/85 were challenged being ultra vires of Article 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India and their Lordships in B. Johnson Bernard's case (supra), held that both the provisions are intra vires and not ultra vires to the Articles 14 of the Constitution of India. It was observed in para 13 of the judgment as under:
"P. 13:-- Section 23-J specifies the categories of landlords, who alone are entitled to the benefit of Chapter III-A. These categories are retired servants of the Government of Defence Services; retired servants of Government owned or controlled companies; widow or a divorced wife; physically handicapped person; or a servant of any Government or Defence Services, who is not entitled by his service condition to Government accommodation, on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to Government accommodation only on payment of penal rent. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratanlal Bhargava, for permissible classification amongst the landlords for conferral of the benefit of the special procedure is fully satisfied by section 23-J. These landlords specified in section 23-J belong to a special category distinct from the remaining landlords, who deserve the benefit of the special procedure on account of their need being more pressing and the handicap from which they suffer as compared to the remaining landlords, the object of the amendment being to provide for expeditious trial of eviction cases on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. Confining this benefit only to these categories of the landlords specified in section 23-J, on account of the greater handicap from which they suffer as compared to their landlords, after taking into account the misuse of the special procedure by certain landlords not falling in these categories, indicates a reasonable nexus of the classification with the object sought to be achieved by the Legislature. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ravi Dutt Sharma's case (supra) the challenge to the classification of the landlords by enacting section 23-J specifying certain categories of landlords only and simultaneously by section 11-A confining the applicability of Chapter III-A to landlords defined in section 23-J, is rejected.,
Our attention was also invited to para 32 of B. Johnson Bernard (supra) which reads as under:
P. 32 :-- The argument that option is given to the landlords defined in section 23-J, to file proceedings on the grounds of bona fide personal need under section 23-A before the Rent Controlling Authority and on the other grounds in the civil Court, while other landlords have only to go to civil Court, is difficult to appreciate. There is actually no option given to choose, there being only one forum for each ground for each category of landlord. It has already been shown that classification of the landlords is valid. No further consideration of this argument is necessary."
In the case of Paraschand v. Hemant Kumar (1986 JLJ 23 = 1987 MPLJ 137, FB), this was a Full Bench decision and in that, the question arose with regard to the effect of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (Amending Act, 1983). In that, their
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
