The main legal point established is the interpretation of the definition of 'landlord' under Section 23-J of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961, specifically addressing the inclusion of retired employees of government-owned or controlled statutory corporations as landlords.

Abhay M. Naik, J.

1. This revision petition has been submitted by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by the Court of Rent Controlling Authority, Indore on 08.04.2011 in Eviction Case No. A-90 (7) 8 / 09-10.

2. Admitted facts of the case are that the revisionist is a tenant of respondent in the suit shop comprised in House No. 33 situated in Morsali Gali, Ward No. 9, Indore, on rent at the rate of Rs. 530/- per month. Respondent has been retired from the services of Municipal Corporation, Indore on 30.06.2004 as Head Clerk. Eviction of tenant has been claimed by the respondent for the bona fide need of his major son, namely, Kamlesh to start the business of jewelery. Landlord/respondent submitted an application for eviction under Section 23-A (b) of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the allegations that he and/or Kamlesh does not have any other alternative vacant nonresidential accommodation for the purpose of business in the city of Indore. The application for eviction was opposed on the ground that Kamlesh is running a cosmetic business with his wife in shop situated in Bakhtawar Ram Nagar, Indore. It is further stated that the landlord/respondent has got vacated various other premises from time to time and has re-let them.

3. Learned Rent Controlling Authority, after recording the evidence, has held that revisionist is a tenant of the landlord/respondent in the suit shop. He has further held that the landlord/respondent bona fide needs suit shop for his son Kamlesh's business. It has also been found that there is no other alternative non-residential suitable accommodation available with the landlord or Kamlesh. Accordingly, the application for eviction stood allowed by the impugned order dated 08.04.2011; hence, this revision.

4. Only point advanced before this Court is that the landlord/respondent is a retiree from the Municipal Corporation, Indore, and therefore, he does not fall within the category of landlords specified in Section 23-J of the Act. Reliance for this purpose has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Das v. Deven Das [1994 (1) MLJR 259].

5. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord/respondent has supported the impugned order.

6. At this juncture, I feel it appropriate to reproduce Section 23-J of the Act, which defines landlord for the purpose of Chapter III-A of the Act:-

23-J. Definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-

A. For the purposes of this Chapter 'landlord' means a landlord who is-

(i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services: or

(ii) a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government; or

(iii) a widow or a divorced wife; or

(iv) physically handicapped person; or

(v) 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 penal rent on his posting to such a place.

7. Crucial question in this case is whether the 'landlord' falls in Clause (ii), which takes within it's sweep a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government. The case of Mohan Das (supra) was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court who has held in paragraph 8 that Municipal Corporation employee cannot be said to be government servant and that being so, such employee will not be covered within the definition of Section 23-J of the Act. Obviously, municipal employee cannot be treated as an employee of State Government or Central Government. Question before this Court is whether the landlord in the present case, being a retiree from Municipal Corporation, Indore may be treated as retired servant of a company owned or controlled by the State Government. For this purpose, this Court is required to examine the meaning whic