ASHOK KUMAR Vs. BABOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned single Judge on the ground that there is a conflict between the two Full Benches judgments; therefore, the matter should be referred to Larger Bench.

(2.) At the very outset, we may mention that it is not correct to say that there is a conflict between the two Full (Sic) Benches judgments of this Court, i.e. in 1985 MPLJ 675 : (AIR 1986 Madh Pra 72), B. Johnson Bernard v. C.S. Naidu) and 1987 MPLJ 137 : (AIR 1987 Madh Pra 50), Praschand v. Hemant Kumar). B. Johnson Bernard (supra) is a judgment by the Division Bench and Paraschand (supra) is a judgment given by the Full Bench. Therefore, it is wrong to say that there was a conflict between two Full (Sic) Benches decisions. In B. Johnson Beranard's case (supra), the Amending Act No. 27/83 and Act No. 7/85 were challenged being ultra vires of Articles 14 and 50 of the Constitution of India and their Lordships in, B. Johnson Bernard's case (supra), held that both the provisions are intra vires and not ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was observed in para 13 of the judgment as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decision of the single Bench given in the case of, Mahendra Kumar v. Anand, 1989 MPLJ 281 : (AIR 1989 NOC 56) wherein the learned single Judge took a view that since a special forum has been created for the landlord defined in Section 23-J then those landlords have only a remedy for seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground of reasonable bona fide necessity before the Rent Controlling Authority and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to that extent. In that connection, the learned single Judge has invoked Section 45 of the Act, which reads as under: