D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. This is a revision under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the tenant. The parties are real brothers. The suit accommodation is house No. 1486 Napier Town, Jabalpur and is a residential accommodation.

2. The admitted facts are that the applicant retired from government service in April 1983. By a deed of gift executed on 30.8.1983, the suit accommodation was acquired by transfer by the non-applicant landlord from his mother. The present application for eviction was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority (in short 'the Authority') on 5.9.1984. The need set up was bona fide need for residence. Another tenanted portion adjoining the suit accommodation was occupied by other tenant (called portion of Sarkar) against whom also the present landlord filed proceedings for eviction and in fact obtained a decree.

3. The counsel appearing for the tenant before me firstly submitted that the application at the instance of the present landlord was not competent before the Authority because he did not fall in the category of specified landlord under section 23-J of the Act. Explaining the above submission, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that this was admittedly a case where the accommodation was acquired by the landlord after retirement from government service. Such a landlord is not covered by the definition of landlord under section 23-J of the Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the tenant on the Division Bench decision reported in B. Johnson Bernard v. C.S. Naidu 1985 JLJ 793= 1985 MPLJ 675, which has considered the case in Mrs. Winifred Ross and another v. Mrs. Ivy Fonsee and others AIR 1984 SC 458. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court, K.L. Shrivastava, J. reported in Badriprasad v. Chimanlal 1987 MPRCJ 66 which has been reconsidered by learned Single Judge, Dr. T.N. Singh, J. in Madanlal v. Mitthulal Sharma 1987 MPLJ 695. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel contended that in respect of retired government servants, restricted meaning has been given to the definition of 'specified landlord' under section 23-J of the Act, keeping in view the aims and objects of the Amendment Act, whereby special speedy remedy of eviction is provided to such retired government servants who already own the accommodation as landlord on the date of their retirement and genuinely require the same for their occupation after their retirement.

4. On the basis of the above decisions, the counsel for the tenant contended that the Division Bench decision in the case of B. Johnson Bernard (supra) is a binding precedent holding that the remedy of eviction through the Rent Controlling Authority is not available to a retired government servant who subsequently acquires the accommodation as landlord by transfer and is not covered by the provisions contained in section 23-J of the Act.

5. Replying to the above contention on the first submission, learned counsel for the landlord invited my attention to the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court, namely, K.M. Agarwal, J. in Virangana Laxmi Bai Gurukul v. Brijendra Narayan Saxenaj4, which according to me considers the Division Bench case as also the Supreme Court case, cited above and takes a correct view holding that even such a landlord who is a retired government servant and acquires accommodation after his retirement by transfer is included in the definition under section 23-J of the Act so as to enable him to approach the Rent Controlling Authority for eviction. Learned counsel for the landlord has also brought to my notice unreported decision of S. Awasthy, J. in H. W. Hemilton v. Albert Joseph CR No. 206 of 1988; decided on 25.1.1989 and the other decision by B.M. Lal, J. in Sunil Kumar David v. K.R. Naidu CR No. 151 of 1988; decided on 5.7.1989, which support the contentions of the learned counsel for the landlor