The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Sections 23-B and 23-C of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, and the consequences of non-compliance with these provisions.

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. This revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been filed by the Applicants/tenants in which they have called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 25-6-2010 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority (hereinafter referred to as RCA) by which the application preferred by the non-Applicant/landlady under Section 23-A(b) of the Act has been allowed by the RCA on the ground that the tenants have failed to file the application seeking leave to contest the prayer for eviction as provided under Section 23-C(1) of the Act within the prescribed time limit.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the revision lie in a narrow compass. The non-Applicant claiming herself to be a widow, filed an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Act on the ground that she bona fide needs the suit accommodation for her grandson who wants to run the business of clothes in the accommodation in question. The notice of the proceedings before the RCA was served on the Applicants/tenants on 4-2-2010. The Applicants/tenants entered appearance through their counsel on 31-3-2010 and filed the written statement, without filing any application under Section 23-C(1) of the Act seeking leave to contest the prayer for eviction. Thereafter, the proceedings before the RCA were fixed for 9-4-2010. On 9-4-2010 the proceedings were adjourned to 23-4-2010. However, the case was adjourned to 7-5-2010 for filing reply to the application filed under Section 13(6) of the Act. On 7-5-2010, reply to application under Section 13(6) of the Act was filed and the case was fixed for arguments on aforesaid application on 11-5-2010. On 11-5-2010 the Applicants filed an application under Section 23-C on the ground that since the Applicants/tenants failed to move any application seeking to contest the prayer for eviction, therefore, the order of eviction be passed in favour of the landlady. The case was fixed for consideration of the issue of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions as well as arguments and was adjourned to 13-5-2010. On 13-5-2010, the arguments were heard and thereafter, vide order dated 25-6-2010 the RCA passed an order of eviction. The RCA held that on 26-2-2010, the Applicants/ tenants were served with the summons of the proceedings however, within a period of 15 days, i.e. up to 15-3-2010 and thereafter on 31-3-2010 even when the non-Applicant entered appearance through the counsel, no application seeking leave to contest the prayer for eviction was filed arid, therefore, the right of the Applicants to contest the prayer for eviction is closed. The RCA on the basis of the affidavit which was filed by the non-Applicant as well as her witness Anurag Jain and the documents, held that grand-son of the non-Applicant is unemployed and wants the accommodation bona fide for carrying on the business of clothes. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the proceedings under Section 23-A(b) of the Act were not maintainable before the RCA as the non-Applicant had set up the need of accommodation in question for her grandson. Learned Counsel for the Applicants also submitted that under Section 23-A(b) of the Act, an order of eviction could be sought only for the requirement of a major son or an unmarried daughter. It was further submitted that Section 23-B of the Act provides that RCA has to issue the summons in relation to every application under Section 23-A of the Act in the form specified in Second Schedule. However, in the instant case, no notice in the prescribed format as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 23-B of the Act was served on the tenants. It was further submitted that provisions of Section 23-B are mandatory in nature and, therefore, the RCA grossly erred in holding that the tenants have lost the right to contest the prayer for eviction. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for