PISTA DEVI GOYAL Vs. BRIJ MOHAN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A widow landlady being a co-owner of a shop, situated at Building No. 7, 123, Sadar Bazar, Shivpuri had initially approached the Civil Court seeking eviction of the tenant from the non-residential premises, upon having a bona fide need of her major son Rakesh Garg, for establishing his business, but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the special provision contained in section 23-A of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') alone should have been invoked, whereafter an appeal preferred before the District Judge also failed, compelling the widow to institute proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority, Shivpuri wherein an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the tenant that all the co-owners have not been impleaded in the application and the Rent Controlling Authority, on being influenced with this aspect of the matter had dismissed the main application on the ground of non-joinder of all the co-owners before seeking eviction of the tenant, which present a very sorry state of affairs and exhibit helplessness of the widow that in-spite of clear legislative intendment of providing speedy justice, through specially created forums for securing eviction of the tenant nothing substantive could be done as yet and after a long lapse of six years, the matter could now reach before this Court.

(2.) This revision petition has been preferred under section 23-E of the Act, upon dismissal/ rejection of the landlady's application by the Rent Controlling Authority, Shivpuri in Case No. 05/2005 by its Order dated 17-7-2006, whereby the application preferred by the widow Smt. Pista Devi Goyal under section 23-J of the Act has been dismissed on the ground that her three sons, namely Ritesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar being her co-owners (co-heirs of her deceased husband Rambabu), had not been impleaded as a party in the eviction proceedings.

(3.) The record demonstrate that Smt. Pista Devi Goyal had issued legal notice to the tenant Brijmohan Garg on date 12-11-2002 seeking eviction of the shop and a suit was instituted before the Civil Judge for seeking eviction in terms of section 12(l)(a) and 12(l)(f) of the Act, but upon finding certain technical flaws, the suit for recovery of the rent was found not tenable, however the Civil Court found that the widow ought to have approached the Rent Controlling Authority for securing eviction of the tenanted premises, in view of special provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act.