Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 686
Dipak Misra, J.
Subhash Kumar
vs
Shankarlal
Decided On : 7 August, 2000
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the definition of a landlord under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in the context of eviction proceedings.
Headnote:
Revisional Jurisdiction - Eviction - M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, Section 23-A, Section 23-J - The court discussed the provisions of Section 23-A and Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and their interpretation in the context of defining a landlord for the purpose of eviction. The court emphasized the definition of a landlord under Section 23-J and its applicability to specific categories of individuals, ultimately influencing the decision to set aside the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The non-applicant filed for eviction of the applicant under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming bona fide need for accommodation. The Rent Controlling Authority passed an eviction order against the applicant, leading to the applicant invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-applicant, a teacher in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, did not fall within the definition of a landlord under Section 23-J of the Act, and therefore, the application for eviction was not maintainable. The court set aside the eviction order, allowing the non-applicant to file a suit under the Act for eviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the status of the non-applicant as a landlord under Section 23-J of the Act and the maintainability of the eviction application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the definition of a landlord under Section 23-J of the Act and its inapplicability to the non-applicant, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the eviction order.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside, with no order as to costs.
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the tenant/applicant has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 20-12-1999 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Betul, in Case No. 1-A-90 (B) 4/99-2000, wherein the said authority has passed the order of eviction against the applicant.
2. The facts as have been undraped are that the non-applicant filed an application for eviction of the applicant from the premises situate in Rajendra Ward, Betul. It was set forth in the application that he had bona fide need for accommodation to settle his son and his son's family and hence, accommodation was required. It is pertinent to state here that the application was filed under Section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the non-applicant belonged to special category of landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the Act. The applicant after receipt of the notice filed an application for grant of leave under Section 23-C of the Act but the Rent Controlling Authority rejected the application for grant of leave by order dated 30-12-1998. Thereafter, Rent Controlling Authority framed three issues and passed the order of ejectment against the applicant.
3. It is worthwhile to note here that issue No. 1 pertained to the status of the non-applicant as a landlord under Section 23-J of the Act.
4. Mr. Chakrawarty, learned counsel for the applicant assailing the impugned order has contended that the non-applicant is not a landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the Act and, therefore, the application under Section 23-A of the Act is not maintainable. His further submission is that the non-applicant is a teacher in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and, therefore, he is not covered in the category as mentioned under Section 23-J of the Act.
It is put forth by Mr. A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the non-applicant that the non-applicant though is a teacher in Municipal Corporation, Nagpur, he will be covered within the ambit of Section 23-J of the Act inasmuch as a Municipal Corporation is a statutory Corporation. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Ranjit Narayan Haksar v. Surendra Verma, 1995 MPLJ 21.
5. To appreciate the rival contentions advanced at the Bar, it is appropriate to refer to Section 23-A of the Act. It reads as under :
"23-A. Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the accommodation, namely :
(a) that the accommodation let for residential purposes is required "bona fide" by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family, or for any person for whose benefit, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.
Explanation :-- For the purposes of this clause, "accommodation let for residential purposes" includes--
(i) any accommodation which having been let for use as a residence is without the express consent of the landlord, used wholly or partly for any non-residential purposes;
(ii) any accommodation which has not been let under an express provision of contract for non-residential purposes;
(b) that the accommodation let for non-residential purpose is required "bona fide" by the landlord for the purpose of continuing
