( 1. ) THE petitioner-landlord has filed this revision under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act), against the order dated 4-8-1987 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (for short the authority) in case No. 90/7/19/85-86.

( 2. ) BRIEF facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner being a retired government servant filed an application under Section 23-A (a) of the Act claiming eviction of the respondent-tenant from the accommodation let for residential purpose on the ground that the same is required bona fide for occupation as residence for himself and for the members of his family. It was also pleaded that one portion of the said house is inadequate and insufficient and there is no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city of Indore.

( 3. ) THE respondent filed the written statement and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the special provisions of eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement as contained in Chapter III-A of the Act. Though the petitioner is a retired Government servant and falls within the definition of landlord under section 23-J of the Act, which specifies the special categories of landlords who are entitled to invoke the special provisions, but the petitioner having already in his occupation a portion of the house in which he is residing with his family members, therefore even if the petitioner is a retiree government servant, he cannot invoke the special provisions in relation to eviction of tenants on ground of bona fide requirement.

( 4. ) LEAVE was granted to the respondent. The Authority framed the issues on 27-3-1987. No issue related to the maintainability of the petition was raised but on the basis of the submission about the maintainability of the application under section 23-A (a) the Authority, after placing reliance on a decision of the Apex court in case of S. P. Jain vs. Krishna Mohan, AIR 1987 SC 222 held that the petitioner-landlord cannot invoke these special provisions as he is already in occupation of a portion of the accommodation and cannot get the remaining portion of the house vacated by filing an application under Section 23-A (a) of the act and as such the application of the petitioner was transferred to the Civil court. Aggrieved of this, the petitioner has filed this petition.

( 5. ) SHRI V. M. Rege, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the petitioner is a retired Government servant and in the Act under section 11-A, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of those who fall as landlord specified or defined in Section 23-J of Chapter III-A of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim eviction under section 12 of the Act in the civil Court. Learned counsel contended that the applicability of Section 12 (l) (e)and (f) in respect of the landlord covered by the restrictive definition of landlord as given in Section 23-J of the Act, such a landlord has to seek his remedy for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement before the Authority and not in the ordinary Civil Court. Reliance was placed on a report of this court in Jagdish prasad vs. Sumitra Bai and others, 1986 JLJ 765. Three other decisions of this court in Durga Prasad vs. Shantilal, 1987 (I) MPWN Note 70, Rukmani Bai vs. Shivnarayan, 1987 (II) MPWN Note 125, and Kamlabai vs. Omprakash, 1987 (11)MPWN Note 181 were also relied in support of the jurisdiction of the Authority. The learned counsel also submitted that Section 11-A of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to the landlords who are specified in Section 23-J and such landlords have to invoke the special jurisdiction before the Authority under Section 23-A of the Act, considering the hardship to such landlords the provision has been inserted, which has been held to be valid and is not violative of art. 14 of the Constitution. See Division Bench case of this court