Rukmanibai vs Shrivnarayan - 1987 Supreme(MP) 625

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : M.L. Agarwal.
For the Respondent: T.M. Panjwani.

Headnote:Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 23 – A, 23 – J and 45 – widow landlord – case of eviction triable by R.C.A. on ground of bona – fide requirement – Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred.
        Short Note
       1. The applicant – house – owner has filed an application for eviction, of the tenant – non – applicant from the premises in question on the ground that she requires bona – fide the accommodation for her residence as well as for her busineS. It was urged by the applicant – house – owner that she wanted to call her mother, father and brothers to reside with her for proper management of her valuable properties. At the instance of the non – applicant's counsel, the learned Rent Controlling Authority framed an additional issue for decision viz. whether, having regard to the applicant's need, the case could be tried in the Court of Rent Controlling Authority.
       2. The learned Rent Controlling Authority without receiving any evidence on the aforesaid issue, has by the impugned order decided the same against the applicant – house – owner, holding that the applicant did not require bona – fide the suit accommodation for herself. The Rent Controlling Authority has further held that the instant case could not be tried by it and has accordingly closed the case and directed that the case be transferred to the Civil Court by the impugned order.
       3. The learned counsel for the applicant – house – owner, has submitted that the brothers, mother and father are not excluded from the definition of the expression family members. The learned Rent Controlling Authority did not record any evidence to see whether father, mother and brothers could be covered in this case within the meaning of family members on the basis of evidence. The learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that a material averment of the applicant – house – owner that she required bona – fide the suit accommodation for her business as well. A case of eviction on the ground of bona – fide requirement for business could be tried only in the Court of Rent Controlling Authority and not in the Civil Court.
       4. The learned counsel for the applicant – house owner has also contended that the applicant being a widow, was included in the category of land – lords mentioned in section 23 (j) of the Act in respect of whom the eviction case could be tried only by the Rent Controlling Authority. Section 45 of the Act bars trial of suit for eviction in Civil Court where the landlord happens to be one covered by categories mentioned in section 23 (j) of the Act.
       5. Having heard the learned counsel and having considered the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, I have come to the conclusion that that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant – house – owner must be accepted. The case of eviction from the accommodation belonging to the applicant, who is a widow and who claims eviction on the ground of bona – fide requirement for business is liable to be tried by the Rent Controlling Authority and not by the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction is specifically barred in a case like this. Revision allowed.