Gulab C. Gupta, J.-- 1. The applicant was admittedly a Government servant having retired from the said service on 31st May, 1985. He purchased the suit-shop by a registered sale-deed dated 27.6.1985 and started proceedings under section 23-A of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Guna for obtaining vacant possession thereof. The non-applicant/tenant took an objection that since the applicant had become the landlord in relation to the tenanted premises after his retirement, he does not fall in any of the categories of 'landlord' specified in section-23-J of the Act and, therefore, proceedings initiated by him were ab initio void. It was particularly submitted that a retired Government Servant, in order to be treated as a landlord within the meaning of section 23-J (i) of the Act, must be the landlord on the date of his retirement. The learned Rent Controlling Authority dismissed the objection necessitating the present revision under section 23-E of the Act. The learned Single Judge (Hon. S.K Dubey, J.), who heard the revision finally, was faced with a factual situation, wherein Hon. K.L. Shrivastava, J. in Badri Prasad v. Chimanlal (1987 M.P.R.C.J. 66), Hon. Qureshi, J. in Ramesh Chandra Madhav Ram [1987 (1) MPWN 51], Hon. Dr. T.N. Singh, J. in Madanlal v. Mithoolal (1987 MPLJ 695), Hon. K.L. Shrivastava, J. in Omprakash v. Moolchand (1989 MPRCJ 1) and Hon. B.B. Shrivastava, J. in Sitaram Sharma v. R.C.A. (1990 (1) MPWN 49), had taken the view that such a landlord was not a landlord within the meaning of section 23-J (i) of the Act and was not entitled to resort to speedy remedy under Chapter-III A of the Act. It appears that earlier Hon. Dubey, J. in Gopaldas v. Smt. Prabha [1991 (1) MPWN 76] had taken a similar view, but Hon. K.M. Agrawal, J. in Veerangana Laxmi Bai v. Brijendra (1985 MPRCJ 178), Hon. Awasthy, J. in H.W. Hamiltan v. Albert Joseph (C.R. No. 206/1989 decided on 25.1.1989), Hon. B.M. Lal, J. in Sunil Kumar v. K.R. Naidu (C.R. No. 151/1988 decided on 5.7.1989) and Hon. D.M. Dharmadhikaree, J. in Baijnath Prasad v. Dayashankar (1991 JLJ 189 = AIR 1991 MP 132) had taken the contrary view and held that such a person was covered by the definition of 'landlord' under section 23-J (i) of the Act. Faced with these two divergent views, particularly the view of Hon. Dharmadhikaree, J. who had distinguished the Supreme Court case in Mrs. Winifred Ross (AIR 1984 SC 458) and the Division Bench view of this Court in B. Johnson's case (1985 JLJ 793 = AIR 1986 MP 72) thought it fit to refer the revision for decision of a larger Bench. On such a reference being made, the revision had been placed before us for consideration.

2. As regards facts of the case, it is admitted that applicant Roshanlal was a Government servant and had retired from service on 31st May, 1985. It is also admitted that he purchased the suit-shop after his retirement by a registered sale-deed dated 27.6.1985 and thereafter initiated present proceedings for obtaining vacant possession of the same before the Rent Controller. The tenant, who is applicant in this case, raised the objection that since the non-applicant landlord was not a landlord on the date of his retirement from Government service, he could not invoke the special provision under Chapter-III-A of the Act. The question requiring consideration is " whether the aforesaid objection can be legally sustained?" Since both the parties have placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Mrs. Winifred Ross's case (AIR 1984 SC 458), it would be proper to refer to the same, before deciding the controversy. .

3. Mrs. Winifred Ross was a case under Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and interpreted section 13-A1 of the said Act, which dealt with a retired member of the Armed Forces. The said provision was inserted into the said Act by way of an amendment in the year 1975. One T.H. Ross was a member o