1988 Supreme(MP) 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Omprakash - Appellant
Versus
Moolchand - Respondent
C. R. No. 59 of 1988 (I)
Decided on : 01-09-1988

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – J and 23 – A – retired Government servant letting out accommodation – cannot seek eviction under S. 23 – A.

        Short Note

       1. This revision petition under section 23 – E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 6 – 1 – 1988 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Mandleshwar (for short 'the Authority') whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the residential accommodation in question.

       2. Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these. The non – applicant on 10 – 12 – 1985 filed an application under section 23 – A (a) of the Act before the Authority for eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in question.

       3. The petitioner resisted the application on various grounds. It was mainly contended that the tenancy in question being of a period subsequent to the non – applicant's retirement from Government service, the provisions in Chapter III – A of the Act cannot be availed of by him.

       4. Held : The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the non – applicant did not acquire the status of landlord during the period he was in service, he is not the 'landlord' within the meaning of term as used in section 23 – J of the Act.

       5. The contention of the learned counsel for the non – applicant is that the definition of 'landlord' as given in Sec. 23 – J of the Act does not lay down that a retired Government servant in order to fall within its coverage must have been 'landlord' during the period of his service. Inviting my attention to section 11 – A of the Act he urges that the non – applicant cannot seek his remedy in civil Court and has to approach the Authority.

       6. From a perusal of the deposition of the non – applicant it is clear that he retired from Government service on 28 – 2 – 78 and subsequently purchased the accommodation in question and then rented the same to the present petitioner in 1983.

       7. In the decision in Badri Prasad's case (1987 MPRCJ 66) it has been held that a Government servant who lets out accommodation after his retirement is not covered under the definition of 'landlord' in section 23 – J of the Act as interpreted in the light of the decisions in Winifred Ross's case (AIR 1984 SC 458) and B. Johnson v. C. S. Naidu (1985 JLJ 793).

       8. From the foregoing discussion it has to be held that the impugned order is nullity having been passed by the Authority which had no jurisdiction. 1985 JLJ 793, 1987 MPRCJ 66 & AIR 1984 SC 458 relied on. Revision allowed.