1. Does the civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a composite plea for eviction made by landlord covered by section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961? Did the First Civil Judge Class II, Jaora commit an illegality in passing the order impugned dated 11.8.2004 in Civil Suit No. 23-A of 2002? These two questions are involved for determination in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner herein is defendant in an eviction suit filed by respondent a widow landlady. It is not disputed that she is seeking petitioner's eviction from suit accommodation on the grounds covered by section 12 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act" for short). In written statement, petitioner opposed the claim in suit. Based on pleadings, learned trial Court settled number of issues for trial, including issue No.6 relating to jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide self need of widow-landlady. Petitioner filed an application under Order XIV Rules 1 and 2 r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for determination of Issue No.6 as a preliminary issue. Respondent opposed the application and by the impugned order, learned trial Court sustained the objection hence, this petition.

3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after amendment in the Act in the year 1985, it is clear that Rent Controlling Authority alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to try a claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide need of specified categories of landlords. Civil suit in that regard is, therefore, not maintainable. According to him, issue No.6 is a pure question law and does not require investigation into facts; hence, trial Court ought to have tried it as a preliminary issue. In rejecting the application by order impugned, trial Court committed illegality or at any rate material irregularity.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent supported the order impugned and submitted that after 1976 amendment in the Code, piece-meal trial of issues is undesirable, and the trial Court rightly refused to try Issue No.6 as preliminary issue and in doing so, committed no illegality. Thus, according to him, present writ petition deserves dismissal with costs.

5. Before adverting to rival contentions, it is necessary to keep in mind provisions of relevant law. The M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 governs relations between landlord and tenant covered by the Act of 1961. Section 12 provides certain grounds for eviction of tenant. Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act No.7 of 1985 inserted section 11-A and section 23-1 in the Act of 1961. Section 11-A read with Chapter III-A provide special procedure and confer jurisdiction on Rent· Controlling Authority to try and decide an application for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord defined under section 23-1. As far as eviction, on other grounds, is concerned, there is no doubt that the civil Court has the jurisdiction to try a suit. It is in this backdrop present controversy has to be resolved.

6. From the material available on record, it is clear that respondent-a widow landlady alone is seeking eviction on three counts, viz. arrears of rent; non-user of suit accommodation for more than six months and bona fide self-requirement. These grounds are covered respectively by section 12 (I) (a), (d) and (e) of the Act. Issue No.6 pertains to the jurisdiction of civil Court to deal with the eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the suit accommodation of the widow landlady-respondent. Undisputedly respondent is covered by definition of landlord given in section 23-1 and is governed by section 23-A but she opted for eviction of petitioner from suit accommodation on three grounds as mentioned above and herein lies the twist in the context of factual matrix