G.G. Sohani, Actg. C.J.

1. This case has come up before us for consideration of a question of law referred to a Larger Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows : An application was filed by the non-applicants under section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the applicant from the leased premises on the ground that the said accommodation was bona fide required for the purpose of starting the business of non-applicant No. 3, the major son of non-applicant No. 1, widow of the deceased landlord. The claim of the non-applicants was resisted by the applicant, but the Rent Controlling Authority found, after appreciating the material on record, that the ground for eviction specified in clause (b) of section 23-A of the Act was made out. The Rent Controlling Authority accordingly directed the applicant to put the non-applicants in possession of the leased premises. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant preferred a revision application before this Court. At the time of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that no relief could have been granted by the Rent Controlling Authority to the non-applicants because except non-applicant No. 1 who was the widow of the deceased landlord, other non-applicants were not 'landlords' as defined by section 23-J of the Act and the special procedure provided by section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, was not available to the non-applicants. Reliance was placed on the decision in Sushila Devi Somani vs. Kedarnath Gupta, 1987 JLJ 450. The learned Single Judge felt that there was conflict between that decision and the other decisions of this Court reported in Shankarlal vs. Samual and others, 1987 M.P.R.C. 32, Smt. Saroj Thareja and another vs. Smt. Torn Bai and others, 1988 MPLJ 22 : 1988 M.P.R.C.J. Note 99 and Ratanbai vs. Chetandas, 1986 M.P.R.C.J. 69. To resolve this conflict, the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to a larger Bench to consider the question whether a suit by joint landlords out of whom one is a landlord under section 23-J of the Act, could be entertained by the Rent Controlling Authority if the need is that of a major son or daughter who is also an owner of the suit premises.

3. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that except non-applicant No. 1, the other co-owners of the suit premises were not 'landlords' within the meaning of that expression as defined by section 23-J of the Act and that non-applicant No. 1 was not entitled to seek the relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of any other non-applicant who did not fall in the category of a landlord as defined by section 23-J of the Act, Reliance was placed on the decision in Sushila Devi Somani (Smt.) vs. Kedamath Gupta, 1987 JLJ 450. In reply, Shri Jain, learned counsel for the non-applicants, contended that any one co-owner who was 'landlord' as defined by section 23-J of the Act, was entitled to seek eviction if any of the grounds for eviction specified in section 23-A of the Act was made out.

4. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 23-A of the Act enables a landlord to seek the relief of eviction against a tenant from the Rent Controlling Authority on any ground specified in that provision. The ground specified in clause (b) of section 23-A of the Act is as follows:

23-A(b): that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide' by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-resident