RAMJI KUSHWAHA vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

This Civil Revision has been filed under Section 23-E of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity Act of 1961) to hold that the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by person other than the "Landlord" as defined under Section 23-J of Act of 1961, and to set aside order dated 20.06.2016 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, District Satna in case No. 5-A/90/15-16.

The applicants/tenants contend that, the present respondent representing himself to be the "Landlord" moved an application under Section 23 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 for eviction of the applicants/tenants on the ground that the duration of the tenancy has lapsed and appellants became illegal occupants of the premises, but the Rent Controlling Authority has passed the impugned order dated 20.06.2016 without jurisdiction. Respondent does not fall in the category of ''Landlord'' as per the provision of Section 23-J of Act of 1961. Applicants further submitted that for recovery of the possession minimum period of 2 months is stipulated under Section 23-J. But in the impugned order only 15 days time is granted to the applicants to vacate the premises, failing which the possession shall be removed with the help of Police. Hence, the applicants prayed to set aside impugned order dated 20.08.2016 passed by Act of 1961 without jurisdiction.

Heard the learned counsel for parties at length. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants and contended that learned Act of 1961 closed the right of the applicants'' for cross examination of the respondent''s witnesses, matter was posted for final arguments, thus revision is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the record.

Regarding the objection raised by the applicants for the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority, Section 23(J) of Act of 1961. For the purposes of Chapter-III-A "Landlord" means a landlord who is: (i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services; or

(ii) a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government, or

(iii) a widow or a divorced wife; or

(iv) physically handicapped person; or

(v) a servant of any Government including a member of defence services who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on payment of a penal rent on his posting to such a place."

Annexure A/1 is the application under Section 23(A) of Act of 1961 preferred by the respondent. In this application the respondent did not state that his case is covered under any category of ''Landlord'' as prescribed under Section 23(J) of Act of 1961.

The section purports to give a special meaning to the expression ''Landlord'' for the purposes of Chapter-III-A, i.e. for the purpose of Section 23(A) to 23(I) of Act of 1961. These Landlords are distinct from the remaining Landlords who deserves the benefit of special procedure on account of their need. The text laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Bhargava AIR 1984 SC 967; that for permissible classification, the Landlords for conferral of the benefit of special procedure is fully satisfied by Section 23(J).

In case of Kailash Chandra & others Vs. Dr. Kamla 1997 (2) JLJ 122 = 1998 (1) MPLJ 110, it was held that : "The law says that a Landlord as defined under this Section, shall be entitled to evict the tenant on one or more ground mentioned under Section 23(A) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act."

In case of B. Johnson Bernard Vs. C.S. Naidu 1985 JLJ 739, it is held that : "Under this Section a Landlord has given a simple, unequivocal, unambiguous and clear definition. A Landlord means a Landlord who is a retired servant of any government. Also includes other categories."

In the light of the above principles, it cannot be held that the case of the respondent comes under the category of "Landlord'' as defined under Section 23(J) of Act of 1961, therefore, Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order for the eviction of the applicants/tenants.

Further Sub-Section (2) Clause (a) of Section 23 of Act of 1961 specifically provides that, where as order for the eviction of a tenant is made on the grounds specified in Clause (b) of Section 23-A, the Landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof, before the expiration of period of two months from the date of the order. But, in the impugned only 15 days time has been granted to the applicants to vacate the premises. Clause (b) is of Section 23-A is applicable because the accommodation is situate in city of Jabalpur.

On the above mentioned grounds, it is found that impugned order passed without jurisdiction and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, this revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside.

Respondent filed reply and submitted that the grounds canvassed in the application cannot be entertained under Chapter- III-A of the Act of 1961. Even then the learned RCA closed the right of the applicants for cross-examination of the respondent and the matter was posted for final orders. 4. This revision has been filed on the grounds that this Court was granted stay on further proceedings on 27.06.2016. The applicants submitted an application to communicate the interim order passed by the Court in order to seek stay of further proceedings by RCA which was ignored by the learned Tribunal. The RCA directed that to vacate the premises within 15 days and in case premises is not vacated within the time fixed by the order, the possession shall be vacated with the help of police force. 5. Regarding objection raised by the applicants for the jurisdiction of Rent Controlling Authority, it is cleared that this objection has been taken by the applicants not at the initial stage but at the last stage. 6. Learned RCA found that respondent received rent from the tenants at the life time of their father and applicants were the tenants during life time of respondent''s father as per Kirayanama agreement executed between them. Hence, applicants were directed to eviction from suit property. 7. Section 2(b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 define the Landlord as follows:- "Landlord" means a person, who, for the time being, is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent, or be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodation were let to a tenant and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord.

Section 23-A provides special provision for eviction of tenant on ground of bonafide requirement and Section 23(j) of Act also define the ''Landlord'' for the purpose of Chapter III-A for retired Government employee in retired company employee. 9. Learned RCA after considering all the relevant facts passed impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, it is not disputed that the respondent is a original owner. ?.............. of applicants is based on written rent deed dated 01.05.1997 executed between father''s of applicants and respondent. That agreement was executed only for 5 years. New agreement has not been executed between the present tenants (applicants) and the Landlord (respondent). 10. In the reply filed by the applicants before the Rent Controlling Authority, it is not in dispute that after the death of father of the applicants, the applicants have been substituted in place of their father therefore they cannot challenge the ownership of the respondent. 11. As per the respondent, the applicants are illegally carrying business at the disputed shop and therefore, their possession has become illegal and unauthorised. The respondent is having a remedy to file an application under Section 23-A(b) before the Rent Controlling Authority. It is also found that the learned Rent Controlling Authority closed the right of the applicants for cross-objection of the respondent on proper way. The objection regarding the Rent Controlling Authority has been raised at the last stage of the case, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.