IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 4 OF MAY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 45 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

PREM KUMAR PARIKARATH S/O LATE CHM ACHUTA MARAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O KAILASH BHAWAN OPPOSITE SIVESWARAM TEMPLE CHIRAKKAL KANNUR KERALA (KERALA)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI P.K. CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)

AND JITENDER DUBEY S/O SHRI P.N. DUBEY, R/O FLAT NO. 207 SECOND FLOOR VAIBHAV APARTMENT SURENDRA PLACE OPPOSITE BARKATULLAH UNIVERSITY HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI NIKHIL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This revision has been preferred by applicant/landlord challenging the order dated 28/09/2020 passed by SDO and Rent Controlling Authority, M.P. Nagar Circle, Bhopal, whereby learned RCA has without deciding the application for eviction filed by applicant under Section 23-A(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on merits, dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability holding thereby that the disputed flat being of the ownership of applicant’s wife, the applicant cannot be considered as a landlord for the purposes of Section 23-J of the Act.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI

2. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he by way of application filed under Section 23-A(a) of the Act alleged that he is a retired employee of Punjab National Bank and the tenanted flat was taken by the non-applicant from the applicant of which his wife is owner. He submits that the flat in question being in need for residence of the plaintiff and his family members, the application for eviction was filed. He submits that learned R.C.A. has without considering the application on merits, dismissed the same illegally on the ground of maintainability without taking into consideration the requirement of Section

23-A(a) of the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the flat in question belongs to wife of the applicant, as such he is not landlord for the purposes of Section 23-J of the Act and learned R.C.A. has rightly dismissed the application as not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision. In support of his submissions, he also relied upon definition of landlord given under section 2(b) of the Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of the application dtd.00.03.2019 (Annexure A/1) filed under Section 23-A(a) of the Act, it is clear that the applicant has come with the case that flat in question was given on rent by the applicant to the non-applicant, as such claiming himself to be landlord in view of Section 23-J of the Act, he has filed the application for eviction.

6. Perusal of the impugned order shows, that learned R.C.A. has dismissed the application upon consideration of the fact that the flat in question does not belong to the applicant but it belongs to his wife and has not considered the pleadings made in para 10 of the application (Annexure A/1) filed by the applicant.

7. It is also apparent that learned R.C.A. has dismissed the application filed under Section 23-A(a) of the Act without recording evidence of the parties and Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI without taking into consideration the defense of the non-applicant so also the provision contained in Section 23-A(a) of the Act, which is quoted as under:

23-A. Special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide requirement. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or contract to the contrary, a landlord may submit an application, signed and verified in a manner provided in Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority on one or more of the following grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possess