IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 980 of 2024 SHEIKH AHMAD HANFI Versus DR. APARAJITA SHARMA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Harsh Vardhan Soni - Advocate appeared for petitioner.

Shri Enosh George Carlo and Shri Deepak Kumar Raghuwanshi -

Advocates for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

ORDER By way of present petition, challenge is made to the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority ('RCA' for short), thereby rejecting the application/plaint of the petitioner for eviction of respondents on the grounds that the matter is cognizable by the Commercial Court and since the property has been let out for commercial purpose, therefore, the Courts will not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction.

2. It is not in dispute that under M.P. Accommodation Control Act

1961, for certain special categories of landlords on some specific grounds, eviction petitions are entertained by RCA while for regular categories of landlords, regular civil suits are filed before the regular Civil Courts. Since the present petitioner claims to be a special category of landlord being retired government servant and senior citizen, therefore, as a special category of landlord, he had filed application/plaint before the RCA for eviction of the respondents on the grounds of bona fide need of himself and his sons and daughter to open a nursing home in the suit premises.

3. It is not in dispute that the premises have been let out for commercial purpose and the present respondents are running a nursing home in the suit premises, whereas the plaintiff landlord, who is the petitioner before this Court is also a doctor and was previously in government service and has filed the eviction suit on the grounds of bona fide need to open nursing home for himself and his children as they are also having medical degree.

4. It is not in dispute that the defendants filed an application for eviction of plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that since the property is let out for commercial purpose, therefore, the suit will lie only before the commercial court and not before the regular court or the RCA. This objection has been sustained by the RCA and the claim has been rejected. The aforesaid order is passed by the RCA on the ground that the respondents had also filed a suit against the landlord as they were apprehending unlawful dispossession at the hands of the landlord and his family members and sought permanent injunction, and in that suit, the District Court held that it is not maintainable before the Civil Court, but before a Commercial Court. Hence, the landlord should also approach the Commercial Court.

5. In the present case before the RCA, the defendants/respondents filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since the property is let out for commercial purpose, therefore, the suit will lie before the Commercial Court and not before the Regular Court or the RCA. This objection has been sustained by the RCA and the plaint has been rejected.

6. The aforesaid order is defended by learned counsel for the respondents defendants on the ground that the respondents had also filed a suit against the landlord as they were apprehending unlawful dispossession at the hands of the landlord and his family members and sought permanent injunction. In the said suit, which was filed during the pendency of the suit/application before the RCA, the landlord appeared and took objection that the matter is cognizable by Commercial Court and that objection was sustained by the District Judge and now the landlord cannot take a different plea in the matter and even otherwise the RCA was bound by what was held by the District Judge.

7. Upon considering the aforesaid assertions and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the suit has not been filed raising any commercial dispute. It is simply filed by a landlord for eviction o