CHAND Vs. LAXMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to "the Act" for convenience) is directed against the order dated 20-2-2004 passed by R. C. A. , Bina in Eviction Case No. 2-A/90 (7) 2003-2004.

(2.) LANDLORD late Babulal was a physically handicapped person. The suit house in occupation of tenant/applicants was bonafide required by him for opening a general stores by his one of the unemployed son Manish. Therefore, he filed application dated 22-3-97 before R. C. A. seeking eviction of tenant/applicants under Section 23 (A) (b) of the Act. During the pendency of proceedings landlord late Babulal died. He was survived by widow Smt. Laxmi Bai, Om Prakash, Shila, Anita, Manoj and Manish. Accordingly, non-applicants' names were substituted. Tenant/applicants resisted the application aforesaid seeking their eviction stating inter alia that the suit house is not bonafide required for opening a general stores by one of the son of landlord late Babulal. Manish since has started practising as an Advocate, the need, if any has extinguished. However, the Tribunal below vide impugned order dated 20-2-2004 held that the honafide need of son Manish still exists as he intends to start a business of his own by opening a general store in the suit house. Accordingly, allowing the application under Section 23-A (b) of the Act directed tenant/applicants to vacate and deliver possession of the suit house to the landlord/non-applicants. Being aggrieved, this revision under Section 23-E of the Act has been preferred stating inter alia that on the death of late Babulal application under Section 23-A (b) was not maintainable before the RCA. Prembai, Ashok and Vijay also being widow and sons of late Babulal ought to have been made party to the proceedings. The Tribunal erroneously held that the suit house of honafide required by Manish s/o Babulal for starting a business of his own by opening a general store.

(3.) THE first contention is that landlord late Babulal was a physically handicapped person as such the application seeking eviction of applicants was filed before the Tribunal. However, on his death substituting names of widow Laxmi Bai sons and daughters, the application was not maintainable. Even on the death of late Babulal one of the co-owner non-applicant Smt. Laxmi Bai being widow was competent to continue the proceedings initiated by late Babulal. In Sunderlal v. Smt. Ramkali Bai, 1993 (I) MPWN 222, it has been held that as regard jurisdiction of the RCA, it is manifest that the RCA had jurisdiction to decide the application in view of the fact that the widow definitely falls within the definition of Section 23 of the Act and this point is practically settled that all the applicants in an application to be filed under Section 23-A before the RCA need not fall in the definition of Section 23-J. Further on the death of landlord late Babulal the proceedings rightly continued with reference to the decision of this Court in Dhannalal v. Smt. Kalavatihai and Ors. , 2001 (5) M. P. H. T. 596, AIR 2001 MP 235. The other contention of the applicants is that Smt. Prembai, Ashok Kumar, Vijay being widow and sons of late Babulal ought to have been made party to the proceedings before the RCA. Annexure A-4 is the judgment of Civil Judge Class-I, in C. S. No. 179-A/99 wherein late Babulal and non-applicants were plaintiffs and the names of Smt. Prembai, Ashok Kumar, Vijay stating them to be the widow and sons of late Babulal were made defendants. In what reference the suit C. S. No. 179-A/99 was filed is not clear. Even otherwise, it would not materially affect the proceedings initiated by filing application under Section 23-A (b) of the Act.