1984 Supreme(MP) 188

P. D. Mulye, J.
Nanuram v. Pundlik
C. R. No. 952 of 1983 (I); Decided on 13-3-1984

Headnote:Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (M. P.) -- S. 12(2) -- Civil P. C. 1908 -- O. 23 R. 1 -- suit for eviction on more than the ground pending in Civil Court -- cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.

        The plaintiff filed the eviction suit on the ground of section (12) (1) (f) and Sec. 12(1) (p) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act on the ground that the plaintiff requires the suit accommodation bonafide for starting a fancy goods cutlery shop for his sons Jaywant and Kishore and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation of his own for that purpose. The ground of eviction under Sec. 12(1) (p) of tile said Act has been sought on an allegation the defendant has been convicted for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act by the Municipal Magistrate, Indore.

        Thereafter the plaintiff on 15-9-1983 filed application under order 23 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 12(2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 seeking permission to withdraw the suit for eviction relating to both the grounds under Section 12(1) (f) and (p) of the original principal Act. The said application was opposed on behalf of the defendant. The learned trial Court by the impugned order granted the permission to the Plaintiff to withdraw his suit relating to the ground of eviction under section 12(1) (f) only, which has led to the filing of this petition.

        Held : Admittedly the plaintiff has filed the eviction suit in the Civil Court on more than one grounds, namely, that under section 12(1) (f) and also (p) of the original principal Act. As a matter of facts the plaintiff in his application for withdrawal had sought permission to withdraw the suit for eviction relating to both these grounds, but the learned trial Court by the impugned order has granted leave to withdraw the suit relating to the grounds of Sec. 12(1) (f) only, which means that the suit on the other ground of Sec. 12(1) (p) will proceed before the Civil Court. In that case the defendant will have to face trial for eviction of the suit accommodation before two different forums though on separate grounds as provided in Sec; 12 of the original principal Act, which might create an anomalous position for the tenant to fight with his landlord on two fronts for the same claim of eviction.

        Therefore, it would appear that the legislature by the Amended Act No. 27 of 1983 in Section 12 thereof, in sub-section (2) has deliberately used the word "exclusively" as it was well aware of the fact that a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant on any of the grounds as mentioned in section 12 (a) to (p) of the original principal Act, for which forum is Civil Court and even now by this Amendment Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away only in respect of the grounds of eviction under clause (e) and (f) of the original principal Act and in my opinion if is for this reason that in an eviction suit pending before the Civil Court. the landlord has been given an option to withdraw his suit for eviction in relation to these grounds only with the leave of the Court and proceed against the tenant in accordance with Sec. 23-A of the original principal Act. This would further be apparent from the wordings of Sec. 23-H of the said Amended Act, which relates to deposit of rent, pendings proceedings for eviction or for revision.

        The dictionary meaning of the word exclusive is shutting out or excluding all but what is specified. Considering this definition, it would thus appear that sub-section (2) of section 12, which has thus specified, would apply only to those cases where the eviction suit filed and pending before Civil Court, is only on the ground of Section 12(1)(e) or (f) of the original principal Act and it is only in such type of cases the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amended Act would be attracted and not to those eviction suits in which eviction is also sought on other grounds as mentioned in Sec. 12 of the original principal Act, which are still intact. Revision allowed.