IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.L. Issrani, J.
Mohan Das
Vs.
Deven Das
C.R. No. 501 of 1992 (J)
Decided On: 16.03.1994
M.P. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 - SECTION 23-J - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE NOT A GOVERNMENT SERVANT - APPLICATION FOR EJECTMENT BY RETIRED MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMPLOYEE NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE RENT CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The non-applicant landlord, a retired Municipal Corporation employee, filed an application for eviction of the applicants-tenants under section 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The applicants challenged the maintainability of the application on the ground that the non-applicant was not a Government servant as defined under section 23-J of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the non-applicant landlord was not a Government servant as defined under section 23-J of the Act. The court relied on the decision of this Court reported in Shiv Singh Vs. Krishan Gopal 1986 M.P.R.C.J. 341., as also that of apex Court reported in Union of India Vs. Komal Charan A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1479.
Issues: Whether an employee of a Municipal Corporation is a Government servent within the meaning of section 23 - J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Municipal Corporation is a body corporate and a distinct entity than the State in law. The employees of the Municipal Corporation are not Government Servants as the State Government does not come into the picture so far as the recruitment and conditions of services of such employees are concerned.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority Bhopal was quashed.
K.L. Issrani, J.
1. The order in this revision petition shall also govern the disposal of Kishore Kumar Magurkar & another Vs. Deven Das C.R. No. 524 of 1993, decided on 16th March, 1994.
2. In these revision petitions the point raised is as to whether an employee of a Municipal Corporation is a Government servent within the meaning of section 23 - J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ?
3. In these revision petitions admittely the non -applicant Deven Das is a common landlord. He was working as lower Division Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and retired on 31.7.1989. After retirement he filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal under section 23-A of Chapter III for eviction of the applicants-tenants.
4. According to the applicants, the non-applicant is not covered in the definition of the landlord as defined under section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as'the Act'). Therefore, the application before the Rent Controlling Authority is not maintainable. They have, therefore, challenged the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority on the ground that the Rent Controlling Authority committed an error law in allowing the application of the non-applicant/landlord. The employees of the Municipal Corporation are not Government Servants as the State Government does not come into the picture so far as the recruitment and conditions of services of such employees are concerned. Municipal Council or Corporation is a body corporate and a distinct entity than the State in law. Application for ejectment filed by such retired Municipal Corporation employee, therefore, does not lie before the Rent Controlling authority. For this, learned counsel for the applicants have relied on the decision of this Court reported in Shiv Singh Vs. Krishan Gopal 1986 M.P.R.C.J. 341., as also that of apex Court reported in Union of India Vs. Komal Charan A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1479.
5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant landlord has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that such landlords are covered within the definition of section 23-J clause (i) of the Act. According to him any Government including the local-self- Government like Municipal Corporation as defined in Schedule VII, List II, Item 5 given under the Constitution of India is a 'state' because it has powers to impose tax and penalties as is done by the State Government. He has relied on Commissioner Vs. Patiram 1986 M.P.L.J. 726. and Asst. Director, C.I. Vs. Harnam Chand A.I.N. 1979 Jammu & Kashmir 33., where the word. 'Government' is defined by Full Bench, but according to him Schedule VII List II, item 5 was taken into consideration in that decision. He therefore, supports-the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority.
6. In the case of Shiv Singh Vs. Krishan Gopal (supra), the landlord was anemployee as Accounts Officer in Dabra Municipality and retiredon 16.9.1983.Thereafter on 5.10.1993 he filled an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Dabra under Sec. 23-A of the Act. The tanant had raised an objection that the application was not maintainable because the landlord was not a retired Government servant. The objection was reppelled by the Rent Controlling Authority but allowed by this Court. This Court held that the servant of Minicipal Council is not a Government servant. Thus, he does not fall within the defination of the term "Landlord" as defined under Section 23-J of the Act.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the landlord herein is that there is difference between the Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation will be covered in the word "any Government' as defined under clause (i) of section. 23-J of the Act. Section 23-J (i) of the Act is reproduced hereunder for proper understanding :-
23-J Definition of landlard for the purpose of Chapter III-A- For the purposes of this Chapter "Landlord" means lan
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.