( 1. ) THIS is a revision preferred under section 23-E of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as amended by Act No. 27/83 by the landlord aggrieved by an order of the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior dismissing his application for ejectment of the tenant/non-petitioner under section 23-A (b) of the Act.

( 2. ) IT is not disputed that the suit accommodation is non-residential. It is held by the defendant/non-petitioner tenant of the plaintiff/petitioner. The plaintiff was in Government Service wherefrom he has retired. He has an unmarried daughter by name Mangala, of about 25 years of age.

( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner has been that the daughter does not any longer wish to marry and the plaintiff and his daughter Mangala, both being unemployed for the present, propose to start their own business of stationery and books in the suit accommodation for which purpose they do not have any other accommodation of their own available within the Corporation limits of Gwalior. The defendant/non-petitioner having been allowed leave to defend contested the suit by denying the necessity pleaded by the plaintiff/petitioner. It was also submitted that an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner before Civil Court seeking relief of ejectment on an identical ground was withdrawn without permission of the Court under section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Amendment Act, 1983 and hence the present proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority were barred.

( 4. ) THE trial Court having tried the case on its merits arrived at a finding that the suit accommodation was genuinely needed by the plaintiff for starting the stationery and books business of himself and his unmarried daughter. Still, the relief of ejectment has been denied on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiff failed in proving that he was owner to the suit accommodation and that the proceedings were barred under section 12 of the Amendment Act.

( 5. ) AT the hearing, the learned counsel for the landlord/petitioner has challenged the-order of the authority below as erroneous on the two counts decided against him while the learned counsel for the tenant/non-petitioner has sought to sustain the impugned order not only by supporting the reasonings advanced by the authority below but also by submitting that the tenancy of the defendant/non-petitioner having not been terminated in accordance with section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the proceedings were premature and not maintainable.

( 6. ) THREE points arise for consideration:- (i) whether the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority were barred in view of the suit before the Civil Court having been withdrawn without reserving liberty of seeking eviction afresh before the Rent Controlling Authority; (ii) whether it was necessary for the Rent Controlling Authority to have recorded a finding on the question of ownership of the suit accommodation of the landlord; (iii) whether a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the tenant was an essential pre-requisite to the institution of the proceedings for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority.

( 7. ) AS the documents filed by the parties show and as has not been disputed, the plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant/non-petitioner before the Civil Court on 2-11-1980. The Amendment Act came into force on 16-8-1983. The suit before the Civil Court was withdrawn on 254-1984. The order dated 25-4-1984 shows that liberty of instituting proceedings afresh was not reserved. Still the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant/non-petitioner has to fail for two reasons to be examined hereinafter.

( 8. ) THE objection is based on a fallacy as to the language of section 12 of the Amendment Act. It is interesting to compare the phraseology of the provisions contained in Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code with those contained in section 12 of the Amendment Act. Orde