Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FULL BENCH)
Shantanu Kemkar, Smt. S.R. Waghmare and
Prakash Shrivastava, JJ.
Gulab Bai (Smt.) and others v. Subhash Chandra
Civil Revision No.71 of 2012 (Indore); Decided on 29.4.2013.
(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.23-J(ii) and 23-A -- landlord -- company or corporation owned or controlled by Central or State Government -- meaning of -- Municipal Corporation -- does not fall within company or corporation owned or controlled by Central or State Government -- retired employee of Municipal Corporation -- not covered in definition of landlord -- application for eviction by such landlord before Rent Controlling Authority -- not maintainable.
Question of reference :
“Whether section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 covers within its ambit a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation to maintain application for eviction under Chapter III-A?”
Held : It is clear that the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar v. Surendra Verma (supra), was on a totally different footing, as in that case, the landlord was a retired employee of Government owned Corporation and in the said judgment, the question relating to Municipality or Municipal Corporation was not considered. However, the present case relates to a retired employee of Municipal Corporation, which is constituted under section 7 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The composition of Municipal Corporation is as per Section 9 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The Municipal Corporation consists of Mayor as well as Concillors elected by the direct election from the wards. Thus, it cannot be held to be company owned or to be controlled by the State Government. It being a local elected body having its own independent existence, it can never be regarded as a ‘company’ or a ‘statutory corporation’. It is an entity separate from the Government. On the basis of the provisions contained in sections 10, 80(5), 405, 417, 422, 425, 425-A, 426, 426-A, 427 and 430 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, it cannot be construed that the Municipal Corporation is owned or is controlled by the State Government as a “Government Company” or “statutory corporation” owned or controlled by the Government. 1994 JLJ 740 distinguished.
Having regard to the aforesaid, we answer the reference in favour of the applicants and against the respondent landlord by holding that a retired employee of a Municipal Corporation will not be covered under section 23-J(ii) of the Act to maintain application for eviction under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 1990(I) MPWN 6, 2000(3) MPLJ 609, 1995 JLJ 460 (SC), 1986 MPRCJ Note 11, 1998 MPACJ 128 and 2000(3) MPLJ 537 referred to.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.141 -- SLP before Supreme Court -- question whether retired employee of Municipal Corporation -- falls within definition of landlord -- not dealt with -- dismissal of SLP too brief -- order to be treated as law. [Para 12
Per Smt. Waghmare, J (dissenting) --
(3) Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (M.P.) -- Ss.7, 9, 10, 80(5), 405, 417, 421, 422, 425, 425-A, 426, 426-A, 427 and 430 -- provisions under -- indicate -- that State Government has effective control over Municipal Corporation.
These provisions thus indicate thereby that there is effective control over the Municipal Corporation by the State Government and hence I find that the conclusion is inevitable that the ‘Municipal Corporation’ is drawn within the vortex and ambit of the term “Corporation controlled” by the State Government.
(4) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- Ss.23-J(ii) and 23-A -- who can apply for eviction -- retired employee of Municipal Corporation -- controversy set to rest by apex Court -- question whether retired employee of Municipal Corporation would be retired Government servant also -- question not justiciable -- retired employee of Municipal Corporation is eligible to make application for eviction under Chapter III-A of Act, 1961.
The question was not open to this Court to decide whether the Municipal Corporation was a ‘company’ or not? The point has been settled categorically by the apex Court with reference to section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act itself.
The provisions of section 23-J(ii) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are meant for a special class of landlords such as a retired employees and the controversy has been set to rest in the matter of Surendra Verma v. Ranjeet Narayan Haksar [1995 JLJ 460] (supra), regarding retired employees of the Municipal Corporation being included in the special category of under section23-J(ii) and the judgment of the apex Court had attained finality in the year 1995 itself. This judgment has not been set aside or distinguished and still holds the field and I find that the question is therefore, not justiciable whether a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation would be a retired government servant also.
Consequently I have already stated that I have answered the reference in the affirmative and do hereby reiterate that a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation would be eligible to make an application for eviction under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1995 JLJ 460 (SC) followed. 1994 JLJ 740 referred to.
(5) Constitution of India (As Amended, 1992) -- Arts.343P(e) and 343Q -- Municipal Coporation or Municipality -- constitution of -- is mandate of Constitution -- business of corporation is to carry on local self government and other public purposes -- Municipal Corporation is instrumentality of State. [Paras 8 to 10
¼1½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 23&¥ ¼nks½ rFkk 23d & HkwLokeh & dsanz ;k jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo rFkk fu;af=r daiuh ;k fuxe & dk vFkZ & uxj fuxe & jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo ;k fu;af=r daiuh ;k fuxe esa ugha vkrk & uxj fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh & HkwLokeh dh ifjHkk”kk esa lekfo”V ugha & ,sls )kjk LFkku fu;a=.k izkf/kdkjh ds le{k csn[kyh ds fy, vkosnu & pykus ;ksX; ughaA funsZ’k dk iz’u & ^^D;k e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 dh /kkjk 23&¥ uxj fuxe ds lsokfuo`r deZpkjh dk v/;k; rhu&d ds v/khu csn[kyh dk vkosnu pykus ds fy, viuh ifjf/k esa lekos’k djrh gS^^\ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g Li”V gS fd jathrukjk;.k gdlkj fo- lqjsaUnz ¼iwoksZDr½] ds izdj.k esa [kaM U;k;ihB dk fu.kZ; iw.kZr% fHkUu vk/kkj ij Fkk] tSlk fd ml izdj.k esa] lsokfuo`r deZpkjh ljdkj ds LokfeRo dk fuxe dk HkwLokeh Fkk rFkk mi;qZDr fu.kZ; esa uxjikfydk ;k uxjikfyd fuxe ls lacaf/kr iz’u ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k FkkA rFkkfi] ;g izdj.k uxjifyd fuxe ds lsokfuo`r deZpkjh ls lacaf/kr gS] tks uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 7 ds v/khu xfBr gSA uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 9 ds vuqlkj uxjikfyd fuxe dh lajpuk gSA uxjikfyd fuxe egkikSj ds vfrfjDr okMksZ ls lh/kh fuokZpu )kjk fuokZfpr ik”kZnksa ls curk gSA bl izdkj] bls jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo es gksuk ;k mlds )kjk fu;af=r gksuk ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ;g viuk Lora= vfLrRo j[kus okyk fuokZfpr fudk; gS] bls ,d daiuh ;k ,d dkuwuh fuxe ds :i dnkfi ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ;g ljdkj ls fHkUu ,d lRrk gSA uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 dh /kkjk 10] 80¼5½] 405] 417] 422] 425&d] 426] 426&d] 427 rFkk 430 esa varfoZ”V mica/kksa ds vk/kkj ij] ;g vFkZ ugha yxk;k tk ldrk fd uxjikfyd fuxe ,d ^^ljdkjh daiuh** ds :i esa jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRo esa gS ;k fu;a=.k esa gS ;k ljdkj ds LokfeRo ;k fu;a=.k dk dkuwuh fuxe gSA 1994 ts ,y ts 740 izHksfnrA mi;qZDr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ge funsZ’k dk vkosndx.k ds i{k esa rFkk izR;FkhZ HkwLokeh ds fo:) ;g Bgjkrs gq, mrj nsrs gSa fd uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&¥¼nks½ ds v/khu e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ds v/;k; rhu&d ds v/khu csn[kyh dk vkosnu ykus ds fy, lekfo”V ugha gksxkA 1990¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 6] 2000¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 609] 1995 ts ,y ts 460 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] 1986 ,e ih vkj lh ts uksV 11] 1998 ,e ih , th ts 128 rFkk 2000¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 537 fufnZ”VA ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 141 & mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l ,y ih & iz’u fd D;k uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh & HkwLokeh dh ifjHkk”kk esa vkrk gSa & fopkj ugha fd;k x;k & ,l ,y ih dk vfrlaf{kIr :i esa [kkfjt fd;k tkuk & vkns’k fof/k ds :i esa le>k tk,xkA ¼iSjk 12½ U;k- Jherh ok?kekjs ¼folEer½ ¼3½ uxjikfyd fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 7] 9] 10] 80¼5½] 405] 417] 421] 422] 425] 425&d] 426] 426&d] 427 rFkk 430 & ds varxZr mica/k & minf’kZr djrs gSa & fd jkT; ljdkj uxjikfyd fuxe ij izHkkoh fu;a=.k j[krk gSA bl izdkj ;s mica/k rn~)kjk minf’kZr djrs gSa fd jkT; ljdkj dk uxjikfyd fuxe ij izHkkoh fu;a=.k gS] vkSj blfy, eSa ikrh g¡w fd uxjifyd fuxe dks ikfjHkkf”kd ‘kCn jkT; ljdkj )kjk fu;af=r fuxe dh okrkokr rFkk ifjf/k esa ykuk vifjgk;Z fu”d”kZ gSA ¼4½ LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 23&¥¼nks½ rFkk 23d& csn[kyh ds fy, dkSu vkosnu dj ldrk gS & uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh & fookn ‘kh”kZ U;k;ky; )kjk fu.khZr & iz’u fd D;k uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh jkT; ljdkj dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh Hkh gksxk & iz’u U;k;ky; ds fopkj ;ksX; ugha & uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh 1961 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; rhu&d ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fy, vkosnu djus dk ik= gSA bl U;k;ky; dks ;g fofu’p; djus dk iz’u [kqyk ugha gSa fd D;k uxjikfyd fuxe ,d daiuh Fkh vFkok ugha \ ‘kh”kZ U;k;ky; )kjk Lo;a e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&¥ ds lanHkZ esa iz’u lqLi”V% lqfuf’pr fd;k tk pqdk gSA e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 23&¥¼nks½ ds mica/k lsokfuo`r deZpkjh tSls fo’ks”k Js.kh ds HkwLokeh ds fy, gSa rFkk uxjikfyd fuxe ds lsokfuo`r deZpkjh dk /kkjk 23&¥¼nks½ ds v/khu fo’ks”k Js.kh esa lfEefyr gksus ds laca/k esa fookn lqjsUnz oekZ fo- jathrukjk;.k gdlkj ds ekeys esa 1995 ts ,y ts 460 ¼iwoksZDr½] esa fu.khZr fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk ‘kh”kZ U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; Lo;a 1995 esa vafrerk izkIr dj pqdk gSA ;g fu.kZ; vikLr vFkok izHksfnr ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk vc Hkh fo”k;{ks= esa ykxw gS vkSj blfy, eSa ikrh g¡w fd iz’u D;k uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh jkT; ljdkj dk Hkh lsokfuo`r deZpkjh gksxk] U;k;ky; ds fopkj ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% eSa igys gh vfHkO;Dr dj pqdh g¡w fd eSaus funsZ’k dk ldkjkRed mrj fn;k gS rFkk ,rn~)kjk iqujko`fr djrh g¡w fd uxjikfyd fuxe dk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh e-iz- LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; rhu&d ds v/khu csn[kyh ds fy, vkosnu djus dk ik= gksxkA 1995 ts ,y ts 460 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA 1994 ts ,y ts 740 fufnZ”VA ¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku ¼;Fkk la’kksf/kr] 1992½ & vuqPNsn 343r¼³½ rFkk 343Fk & uxjikfyd fuxe ;k uxjikfydk & dk xBu & lafo/kku dk vkns’k gSa & fuxe dk dk;Z LFkkuh; Lo’kklu rFkk vU; yksx iz;kstu pykuk gS & fuxe ljdkj dk vfHkdj.k gSA ¼iSjk 8 ls 10½
Per Kemkar J. -- 1. This reference has been made before us vide order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in Civil Revision No.71/2012 to answer the following question :
“Whether section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 covers within its ambit a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation to maintain application for eviction under Chapter III-A?”
2. Briefly stated, the respondent – a retired employee of the Indore Municipal Corporation filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority (for short, RCA), Indore, under Section 23-A of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act 1961”), seeking eviction of his tenant (applicants herein) for his bona fide requirement of the non-residential accommodation situated at Indore let out to them (claiming himself to be covered under the definition of ‘landlord’ given under section 23-J of the Act 1961).
3. The applicants in their reply denied the averments made by the respondent in his application. They raised a plea that the respondent is not covered under the Special Category of ‘landlord’ as defined in section 23-J of the Act 1961.
4. The RCA vide its order dated 24.2.2012 passed in Eviction Case No.A/90 (7) I-2010-11 allowed the application and ordered for eviction of applicants. It accepted the plea of the respondent that he is covered under the term ‘landlord’ defined under section 23-J of the Act 1961. The Authority while taking this view relied on the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this High Court in Civil Revision No.120/2011 (Ghanshyam s/o Champalal Soni v. Subhashchandra s/o Narendra Prasad Soni) decided on 24.08.2011 who, in turn, relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this High Court passed in the case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar v. Surendra Verma [1994 JLJ 740=1995 MPLJ 21]. The learned Single Judge in para 8 of the order held as under :
“8. This Court is not impressed with this contention because learned Division Bench has clearly concluded that retired employee of Government owned or controlled statutory Corporation is a landlord as defined in section 23-J(ii) of the Act. Undoubtedly, Municipal Corporation is statutory Corporation on account of its constitution by virtue of section 7 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Chapter XXXIV of the Act contains various provisions of the State Government for having control on it. Thus, it cannot be denied that the Municipal Corporation is statutory Corporation and is controlled by the State Government. This being so, it is held that retired employee of Municipal Corporation is a landlord as defined in section 23-J(ii) of the Act and law laid down by the Single Bench in the case of Mohan Das (supra), stands impliedly overruled in view of the aforesaid observation of division bench.”
5. The applicants challenged the order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the RCA, in Civil Revision No.71/2012 under section 23-E of the Act 1961 before this High Court. And during the course of its hearing the learned Single Judge, noticing the conflicting views having been taken by the different Benches, referred the aforesaid question for being decided by a Full Bench so that conflict may be resolved.
6. Before us, learned counsel for the parties and also the amicus curiae have agreed that a retired employee of the Municipal Corporation would not fall within the meaning of “retired servant of any Government” as stated in clause (i) of section 23-J of the Act 1961. They, therefore, confined their submissions only in respect to clause (ii) of section 23-J of the Act 1961; and as such, we are answering the question only to that extent. In the circumstances, reference about clause (i) of section 23-J is uncalled for, as none of the parties have placed reliance on clause (i), and therefore, the question about clause (i) of section 23-J does not arise.
7. Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned amicus curiae and Shri S.K. Pawanekar, learned counsel for the applicants have argued th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
