The main legal point established is the interpretation of the definition of 'landlord' under section 23-J of MPACA and the control of the Central Government over the State Bank of Indore under sections 38, 45, and 62 of the Special Act to determine the respondent's status as a landlord and his bonafide need for the suit accommodation.

The applicant/tenant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bhopal in caseNo.08/RCA/2009-10, whereby an order of eviction was directed against the applicant for a shop having measurement9.6' X 13.6', situated at house No.16-A, New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant who was a retired employee of State Bank of Indore has filed an application under section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act for ejectment of the respondent from the aforesaid shop on the basis of the necessity. In the application, he gave the explanation about the other accommodation available to him. After filing of reply to the application, he modified the application that neither a talk took place for enhancement of the rent, nor his daughter started her business in the year 2001. It was pleaded that the daughter of the applicant/landlord had started her business in the name of her mother but, since 1996 she was doing her regular business.

3. In reply to the application filed by the landlord, the present applicant/tenant has submitted a reply that there was no bonafide need to the landlord. He could start his shop in the construction, which had proper shutters and itwas being used as a garage. Also, he could use the shop of his daughter. After retirement, he disposed off the second shop by giving it to his daughter and therefore, the land lordhad an alternate accommodation and he did not have any need to get the suit accommodation evicted. It was also objected that the landlord did not fall within the purview of landlord under section 23-J of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'MPACA') and therefore, it was prayed that the application for ejectment may be dismissed.

4. The learned Rent Controlling Authority, after getting the evidence recorded, decided each and every issue in his order dated 26.2.2010 and an order of eviction was granted.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has raisedan objection that the landlord was not within the purview of landlord as required under section 23-J of MPACA because he was retired as an employee of State Bank of Indore. Thereliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of “Ranjit Narayan Haksar Vs. Surendra Verma”, [(1994) JLJ 740] and also an order passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of “Surindra Verma Vs. Ranjeet Narayan Haksar”, [(1995) JLJ 460] in which the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court was confirmed and thereafter, referring the various provisions of sections 38, 45, 62, 63 etc. of State Bank of Indore (Subsidiary banks) Act, 1959 (hereinafter it will be referred to as “Special Act”), it is submitted that the State Bank of Indore was not under control of either Central Government or State Government and therefore, the applicant does not fall within the purview of landlord as required by section 23-J of MPACA. It is further submitted that the applicant has no need of the shop. He disposed off his available accommodation after his retirement and he had alternate accommodation with him to run his business, if he so desires and therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the trial Court may be set aside. To show the control of government, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases of “State of Mysore Vs.Allum Karibasappa and others”, [AIR 1974 SC 1863] and “State of U.P. and others Vs. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh etc. [AIR 1989 SC 997].

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to sections 3, 4, 11, 38, 45 and 62 of the Special Act to show that the State Bank of Indore was under control of the Central Government and therefore, the respondent was the landlord within the purview of sectio