LAWS(MPH)-1990-3-35

LAXMI BAI Vs. SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR

Decided On March 07, 1990
LAXMI BAI Appellant
V/S
Sh. Rajendra Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') has been filed by the landlord against the order dated 5.8.1987 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Harda (in short 'the Authority'), refusing grant of order of eviction in her favour.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the applicant/landlady being a handicapped person is covered by the definition of specified categories of landlords under Section 23-J of the Act. In the aforesaid capacity as a specified category of landlord, she claimed the present accommodation for the alleged need of her major son, under Section 23-A(b) of the Act. The tenant opposed the application on the ground that there was no bonafide need in favour of the landlord. The Rent Controlling Authority by the order impugned has rejected the application of the landlord only on the ground that her son Yatindra Kumar being himself not a handicapped person, the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The Authority also recorded a finding that as Yatindra Kumar, the son of the landlady had available with him one godown and a vacant plot, the alleged need of the suit accommodation for starting a shop was not bonafide.

(3.) ASSAILING the order of the Authority the learned counsel appearing for the landlord firstly submitted that the Authority committed a serious error of jurisdiction in declining relief to the landlady on the ground that the son of the landlady for whose need the accommodation was sought, is not a handicapped person. The above contention of the learned counsel, without much discussion, is very sound and deserves to be accepted. The Authority has clearly shown his complete ignorance to the provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act, providing special procedure and forum for eviction through the Authority. For the purpose of Chapter III-A of the Act, landlord is defined under Section 23-J of the Act to include in its sub-section (iv) physically handicapped person. It was not disputed that the present landlady is a physically handicapped person and is covered by the definition of landlord for the purpose of Chapter III-A of the Act. Under Section 23-A(a)(b) the specified category of landlord can approach the Authority seeking eviction of the accommodation for residential or non-residential purpose for his/her own need or for the need of any member of his family including for continuing or starting business by any of his major sons or unmarried daughters. The provisions of Section 23-A(a)(b) nowhere lay down that for seeking eviction through the Authority the person for whose bonafide need or alleged need the accommodation is sought, should also fall in the category of specified landlord under Section 23-J of the Act. The Authority totally lost sight of the fact that once the landlord is of the specified category as defined under Section 23-J of the Act, it is competent for the R.C.A. to entertain an application for eviction on his or her behalf although the need set up may be for any member of his family or for his any major son or any unmarried daughter. The Authority, therefore, clearly refused to exercise jurisdiction on a ground which was not permissible in law.