The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'landlord' under section 23-J and the significance of establishing bona fide requirement for eviction.

Sujoy Paul, J.

This civil revision filed under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Prescribed Rent Control Authority (R.C.A.) dated 8-5-2015.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the non applicant filed an application under sections 18 and 20 of the M.P. Parisar Kirayedari Adhiniyam, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Satna for eviction of the applicant and for recovery of arrears of rent. This is not in dispute between the parties that a tenancy agreement dated 6-7-2000 was executed between the husband of non applicant and the applicant. Accordingly, a shop was allotted to the applicant for an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month. The applicant is running the shop in the name of Parul Agency from the said rented shop.

3. The applicant filed written statement and controverted the allegations of application filed under section 18 and 20 of the Adhiniyam. The Court below after hearing the parties allowed the application of non-applicant and directed the applicant to vacate the accommodation in question and hand over the possession to non-applicant within one month. It is further directed that arrears of rent be adjusted from the security amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. If anything is remaining after adjustment of arrears of rent, the said amount be paid to the other side.

4. Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order by contending that the Adhiniyam although got assent of Hon’ble President but as per section 1(3) of the Adhiniyam it has not been published in the official gazette. Hence, the Adhiniyam has not been enforced till date. The application of non-applicant before the R.C.A. was not maintainable because it was filed under the Adhiniyam, which is not enforceable till date. Thus, the Authority below has acted with material irregularity and in excess of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Authority below had no jurisdiction to pass the decree for arrears of rent. For the purpose of recovery of arrears of rent, non-applicant should have filed civil suit and the application before R.C.A. was not maintainable.

5. It is further urged by Shri Jain that the accommodation in question was sought to be vacated by showing the alleged bona fide need of non-applicant’s son Nitinraj Nema. It is submitted that non-applicant allegedly adopted Nitinraj Nema but failed to prove custom of adoption. The adoption was against the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. On this score alone, the order of Court below needs to be interfered with. It is argued that the unregistered adoption deed was also inadmissible in evidence. Thus, the learned R.C.A. should have dismissed the application for eviction.

6. Shri Jain by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2008) 15 SCC 538, Sulochana v. Rajinder Singh, urged that the non applicant’s case is not covered under section 23-J of the Act. It is submitted that the non-applicant cannot be treated to be a ‘landlord’ within the meaning of the said Act.

7. Shri Jain has taken pains to contend that the summons issued by R.C.A. were not in the prescribed form and proceedings based on such summons are liable to be interfered with.

8. Shri Shreyas Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He submitted that the non-applicant is a landlord as per Chapter III-A of the Act. He submitted that the Court below has not committed any error of law while allowing the application of non-applicant. In support of his contention, he relied on Pradeep Kumar v. Hajari Lal, (2008) 3 SCC 299, Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and others, 2011 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 625 : (2011) 5 SCC 532, Praveen Kumar v. Raghunath s/o Jagannath Ghorse and another, 2013 (2) M.P.L.J. 237. No other point is rais