Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Jagdish Prasad
Vs.
Sumitrabai & others
C.A. No.221 of 1985
Decided on : 14-8-1986
In regard to suits, Order 1, rule 1, CPC embodies the enabling provision for joinder of plaintiffs. In order that a suit is properly constituted, necessary parties have to be on record. In eviction matter ordinarily all the co-landlords are necessary parties. AIR 1977 SC 1599 referred to. [Para 17
(2) Civil P.C., 1908-O. 1, R. l-evictions suit against trespasser-can be instituted by any co - landlord.
An eviction suit against a trespasser stands on different footing and anyone of the co-landlords may institute such a suit. 1985 MPLJ 10 relied on. (Para 18
(3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P)-S. 23 A-application for eviction under all landlords need not be joined.
An application under section 23 A of the Act for eviction of a tenant also stands on a pedestal different from that of a suit for eviction against a tenant and for its proper constitution the joinder of all co-landlords is not at all necessary. [Para 18
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.)-Ss. 23 J and 12 (1) (e) and (f)-'landlord' covered under S. 23 J-S. 12 (1) (e) and (f) not applicable to his case.
It is clear that the provision excludes the applicability of section 12 (1) (e) and (f) ibid in respect of landlord covered by the restrictive definition of 'landlord' as given in section 23 J ibid and such a landlord has to seek his remedy for eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement before the Authority and not in the ordinary civil Court. [Para 19
(5) Accommodation Control Act, 1967 (M.P.)-Ss. 23-J and 23-A-application for eviction by several landlords-some of them not covered as defined under section 23-J-application still maintainable and triable by Rent controlling Authority.
In an application under section 23-A of the Act even if landlords other than those covered within the restrictive definition of the term 'landlord' as given in section 23-J ibid are also joined as applicants, such joinder cannot have the effect of divesting the Rent Controlling Authority of the jurisdiction to entertain the application and grant relief of eviction to only such of them as are entitled to it in terms of sections 23 A and 23-J ibid. Only because in an application under section 23-A of the Act, in addition to the landlord covered by the definition of the term in section 23-J of the Act, there are other co-landlords joined as co-applicants or relief of eviction not covered under section 23-A ibid is claimed, the right of speedy remedy before the Authority given by the Legislature to the specified landlord covered under the definition in section 23-J in terms of section 23-A ibid can not be denied Such denial would result in non-exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the specified landlords vested in the Authority by law. [Para 22
K.L. Shrivastava, J.-
l. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revision No 202 of 1985 (Om Prakash v Smt. Padmavati and others). These revisions involve a common question.
2. These revision petitions under section 23-E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Principal Act' or 'the Act') are directed against the orders passed by the Rent Controlling Authority Indore in Cases Nos. 654/84 (Sumitrabai and two others v. Jagdish Prasad) and 279/83 (Smt Padmavati and another v. Omprakash) holding that the cases are not liable to be transferred to the Civil Court under section 9 of the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act 1985 (for short 'the amending Act 1985').
3. Facts giving rise to these petitions are these. In contesting the applications under the special provisions under section 23 A occurring in Chapter III-A of the Principal Act which was added by the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act 1983 (for short the Amending Act of 1983) providing for recovery of accommodation by landlords on the ground of bona fide requirement in new forum of the Rent Controlling Authority and by summary inquiry with only a right of revision, it was urged by the tenant, the present petitioners, that as the application for their eviction is not by the widow alone but also by others who are not covered under the restrictive definition of 'landlord' as given in section 23-J of the Principal Act, the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority (for short 'the Authority') stands excluded and the cases have to be transferred to the civil Court as provided by section 9 of the Amending Act of 1985.
4. In case No. 279/83, the case of the widow Padmavati under sec. 23 A (a) of the Act is that the accommodation in question is required bona fide for her residence as she being a.
T.B. patient wants to reside separately from her son who has been impleaded as co-applicant. In the other case, the version of Sumitrabai with her two sons as co-applicants, is that accommodation in question is required bona fide by her for the business of her elder son. It may be pointed out at this very stage that the bona fide requirement of landlord under S. 23-A (a) for residence includes his own requirement and the requirement of his family members and the requirement under, section 23-A (b) for business, covers his requirement and also the requirement of his major son.
5. The point for determination is whether the impugned orders deserve to be set aside in exercise of this Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 23-E of the Act.
6. Sec. 23-J of the Act inserted by the Amending Act 1985 embodies the restrictive definition of 'landlord' for the purpose of Chapter III-A of the Act and amongst others. includes a widow. A combined reading of the provisions embodied in section 23-A and 23-J of the Act shows that a person' falling within the definition of landlord as given in the latter provision may submit an application for eviction of tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement as catalogued in the former provision.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under section 5 of the M.P. General Clauses Act 1957 (for short 'the G.C. Act') singular includes the plural and, therefore, unless all the applicants fall in the category envisaged under section 23 J of the Act, the Authority bas no jurisdiction to entertain their application for eviction.
8. On a careful consideration, I am of the view that the tenant's aforesaid contention has no force and must be repelled.
9. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of section 5 of the G. C. Act It reads thus :-
"In all Madhya Pradesh Acts, unless a different intention appears;
(a)
(b) words in the singular shall include the plural and words in the plural shall include the singular."
10. The net result of reading section 23-A of the Act together with section 5 of the G. C Act is that an application under the former provision may be by plurality of landlo
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
