BHERULAL BHATT Vs. KAMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act is directed against the order dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority in Eviction Case No. A -90(7) 53/99, whereby the learned Authority has dismissed the main application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has already filed the suit for eviction against the non -applicant before the civil Court for the same relief.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the applicant filed an application under section 23 -A before the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore for eviction from the tenanted premises which were let out for residential purpose on the ground that the applicant was an employee of State Government and he has already attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, the accommodation let out for residential purpose is required by the landlord for himself and for the members of his family and that the landlord has no other reasonable residential accommodation of his own in Indore city. In this case, the non -applicant on 27.3.2000 filed an application under section 10, CPC for staying the further proceedings on the ground that the applicant has already filed a civil suit No. 11 -A/2000 in the Court of VIII ADJ, Indore for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and nuisance.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has invited my attention that u/s 23 -A, the proceedings for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement is special in nature and they are limited only upto the bona fide requirement of Government servant. Learned counsel for applicant also drew my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ratnakar v. Haji Inayat Ullah, reported in AIR 1989 MP 134, in which it has been held that the RCA has no jurisdiction or authority to pass a decree for arrears of rent claimed which had fallen due prior to the date of application u/s 12(1) (A) of the said Act. For those past arrears of rent, the landlord has only remedy to approach the competent civil Court. As per the proceedings of section 23 -H, tenant is bound to make payment as required by section 13 only from the date of filing of application before the RCA and not earlier. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for applicant is that the plaintiff is in arrears of rent since 1.8.1997, therefore, he has filed a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent against him and also for obtaining a decree of eviction on the ground of nuisance and applicant is entitled to file a suit before the civil Court on the grounds other than the ground of bona fide requirement as a Government servant which is a special provision. He further cited the decision in the case of Zinatbai v. Munnikhan [ 1987(11) MPWN 144] in which this Court has held that the provisions of section 10, CPC are not applicable in the proceedings before RCA. He also cited decision in the case of Phoolwati Hakim v. Ramesh Manocha reported in 1994 (II) MPWN 243, in which it has been held that the eviction proceedings pending before civil Court in which title of landlord has been challenged as both are not suits.