NANDLAL Vs. MANGIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES the Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a composite plea for eviction made by landlord covered by Section 23-J of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ? Did the First Civil Judge Class II, Jaora commit an illegality in passing the Order impugned dated 11-8-2004 in Civil Suit No. 23-A of 2002 ? These two questions are involved for determination in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER herein is defendant in an eviction suit filed by respondent - a widow landlady. It is not disputed that she is seeking petitioner's eviction from suit accommodation on the grounds covered by Section 12 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short ). In written statement, petitioner opposed the claim in suit. Based on pleadings, learned Trial Court settled number of issues for trial, including issue No. 6 relating to jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain claim for eviction on the ground of bonafide self need of widow-landlady. Petitioner filed an application under Order XIV Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for determination of Issue No. 6 as the preliminary issue. Respondent opposed the application and by the impugned order, learned Trial Court sustained the objection hence, this petition.

(3.) AT the time of hearing, learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that after amendment in the Act in the year 1985, it is clear that Rent Controlling Authority alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to try a claim for eviction on the ground of bonafide need of specified categories of landlords. Civil suit in that regard is therefore, not maintainable. According to him, issue No. 6 is a pure question of law and does not require investigation into facts; hence, Trial Court ought to have tried it as a preliminary issue. In rejecting the application by order impugned, Trial Court committed illegality or at any rate material irregularity.