RAYEES AHMED Vs. IDDO BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the XII Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.25-A/2008 by which the objection filed by the petitioner/defendant with respect to maintainability of the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are that the respondent has preferred a suit against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit accommodation, a shop, on the various grounds enumerated under Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). The respondent has claimed arrears of rent, eviction of the petitioner from the suit shop, mesne profits etc. The petitioner has contested the suit on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to claim such decree of eviction. She is not in bonafide need of the shop. Certain shops were got vacated but the same are being let out after raising the rent. Need indicated in the suit is not bonafide and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the respondent being a widow, is a specified landlord defined under Section 23-J of the Act and is required to file an application under Section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the petitioner in case she is in bonafide need of the demise premises. It is contended that since there is a bar provided under Section 45 of the Act with respect to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, such a suit as has been filed, is not maintainable and the composite suit is liable to be dismissed. However, the Court below has rejected such an application of the petitioner by the impugned order and, therefore, this revision is required to be filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Section 45 of the Act makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of such a suit, which could be filed under Section 23-A of the Act before the Rent Controlling Authority. Reading the provisions of Section 23-J of the Act, it is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent is a widow lady, she is a specified landlord and, therefore, she is required to approach the Rent Controlling Authority for seeking eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act where it is specifically provided that the eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement can be directed by the Rent Controlling Authority. It is contended that such a composite suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court and only for the purposes of arrears of rent, the suit could have been filed before the Civil Court. As such, the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.