BHAGWANDAS Vs. MANGAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the landlord had filed the suit not only on grounds or bona fide need as provided in section 12 (1) (I) of the Act, but also on grounds provided in section 12 (1) (g) and (h) of the Act. It has come in evidence of the plaintiff during his cross -examination that the suit accommodation was let out to the defendant -appellant after the plaintiff had retired from the Government service. In the opinion of this Court, in such cases where a suit for eviction has been instituted on composit grounds, it will be the civil Court alone that will have the jurisdiction over the matter. Secondly, it is doubtful as to whether in those cases where a Government - servant has let out the accommodation or entered into a business of providing the accommodation on rent after his retirement, shall he allowed to avail of the special protection provided to such Government servants.

(2.) SIMILARLY , the protection under section 23 -A to 23 -J of the Act cannot be availed of by a retired Government servant to recover the possession from a tenant of a building which he acquires after his retirement. Reference may be had to Winifred Ross v. Ivy Fonsee (AIR l984 SC 458).

(3.) SINCE decree has been granted on both the grounds, i.e. bona fide need and re -construction, and, therefore, it was not necessary to fix the time. In case, the decree is granted only on ground of re -construction, time for the same can be fixed by the appellants Court itself.