U.L. Bhat, C.J. -- 1. The common petitioner in these revision petitions has challenged the orders passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in two different proceedings for eviction against his tenants, upholding the objection raised by the tenants that the proceedings cannot lie under Sec. 23 (A) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1991 (for short the Act).

2. The landlord seeks eviction of tenants from different premises, under section 23 (A) (a) of the Acton the ground of bona fide requirement for residence of himself and for members of his family, alleging that he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation of his own in the city or town concerned. Section 23-A is in Chapter III-A which has been incorporated by the M.P. Act 27 of 1983. This chapter contains special provisions in regard to certain categories of landlords. 'Landlord' means a person who is a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services or a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government, or a widow or a divorced wife, or physically handicapped person or a servant of any Government including a member of defence services who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on payment of a penal rent on his posting to such a place. 'Landlord' as defined in section 23-J of the Act can apply to the Rent Controlling Authority under section 23 (A) of the Act for eviction of the tenant on grounds specified therein. Section 23-B to 23-I deal with procedure, revision and incidental matters. These provisions constitute a departure from the general provisions and procedure provided in Chapter-III of the Act dealing with eviction of tenants. Section 11-A states that the provisions of Chapter-III in so far as they relate to matters specially provided in Chapter III-A shall not apply to the landlord defined in section 23-J of the Act. The general provisions of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is contained in clauses (e) and (t) of section 12 (1) of the Act. But eviction under section 12 has to be sought by filing a suit before the competent Civil Court. The purpose of Chapter III-A is to provide for expeditious remedy to certain categories of landlord before a different forum.

3. The landlord in these cases who has filed eviction petitions under section 23-A of the Act is a retired employee of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, a statutory body which came into existence under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 which is admittedly owned, if not controlled by the State Government.

4. The controversy is whether a retired employee of the Corporation is attracted by definition of 'landlord' in section 23-J (ii) of the Act, i.e. "a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government". According to the petitioner, 'company' referred to in section 23-J (ii) is not restricted to company incorporated under the Companies Act but has to be understood in the general legal sense. The tenants contend that the words 'company' in section 23-J (ii) has to be understood as a company incorporated under the Companies Act, that the Corporation is not a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, but a statutory Corporation and hence would not be a 'company' contemplated in section 23-J (ii) of the Act. The learned Single Judge (Qureshi, J.) who heard the revision petitions noticed conflicting decisions of Single Judge of this Court on this aspect and referred the question involved to a larger Bench. We have heard the revision petitions and propose to dispose of the same.

5. We will first advert to the conflicting decision referred to by the learned Single Judge. In Vipin v. Ranajitnarayan and others (1986 MPRCJ Note No. 11), Mulye, J. held that a retired employee of the M.P. State Road Transport C