RAMBAI SAXENA Vs. JASWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision along with Civil Revision No.466 of 1984 Erose Enterprise v. Kailash Narayan and another C.R. No.608 of 1984 Gulabrai Sethi v. Ramprakash Ahuja and C.R. No.739 of 1984 Major Karamsingh v. Raman Kumar Sharma have been referred to the Division Bench for opinion on the following question :- "Whether an application under S.23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, as amended, the Court-fee is to be paid ad valorem or the prescribed Court-fee of Rs.2/- as payable on application?"

(2.) These revisions arise out of the proceedings for eviction by the landlords against their tenants pending before the Rent Controlling Authority under S.23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of bona fide need. Civil Revision Nos.620 and 739 of 1984 are preferred by the landlords against the order of the Rent Controlling Authority directing them to pay court-fee on their applications as required for eviction suits under the Court-fees Act. Civil Revision Nos.466 and 608 of 1984 have been preferred by the tenants against the order of the same Rent Controlling Authority overruling the objection of the tenants that the same court-fee is payable on the application under S. 23-A as is payable for eviction suits. It may be mentioned that all suits for evictions against tenants on any of the grounds mentioned in S.12 of the Act were to be filed in civil Court. By introducing a new Chapter 1IIA containing Ss.23-A to 23-1 by the amending Act No. 27 of 1983, suits for eviction on the ground of bona fide need by the landlord have been deleted from under S.12 and these sections have been added empowering the Rent Controlling Authority to decide the application for eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. However, by a further amendment by Ordinance No.1/85 S. 23-J has been added to Chapter II1-A restricting the definition of 'landlord' for the purpose of this Chapter to be a retired or serving servant of any Government or of a company controlled by any Government, widow or a divorced wife and physically handicapped person requiring a house for his or her bona fide need. The learned single Judge in view of the general importance of the question raised in these revisions relating to the court-fee payable on application under section 23-A of the Act, has referred the same for opinion of this Court.

(3.) The question is whether the court-fee is payable on an application filed under section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona-fide need. S.7(xi)(cc) of the Court-fees Act provides that in a suit between a landlord and a tenant for recovery of immovable property from the tenant, the amount of court-fee payable will be 12 months rent payable for the next year before the date of presenting the plaint. Obviously, this provision applies to suits only and not to other proceedings though they may be in the nature of suits. S. 9 of the Civil P.C. gives jurisdiction to the Civil Court to try all suits of a, civil nature excepting those which are expressly or impliedly barred by any other law. So normally a suit for eviction on any ground is triable by a Civil Court unless it is expressly or impliedly barred by any other law. Under O. IV R.1 every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint. Even though dictionary meaning of 'plaint' is very wide, it has in legal phraseology come to acquire more limited meaning i.e. a statement in writing of a cause of action in a suit. Every proceeding in a court is not commenced by a plaint. O.VII R.1 mentions the particulars to be contained in a plaint. Now a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need is not maintainable in a civil Court but the landlord can file an application under S.23-A of the Act for eviction of the tenant. It is pertinent to note that in S.23-A the word 'application' is mentioned and not suit. So what is to be filed is an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need. However, S.23-A mentions that the application should be signed and verified in a manner provided in Rr.14 and 15 of O.VI of C.P.C. as if it were a plaint to the Rent Controlling Authority. This is also the requirement of applications to be made before the Rent Controlling Authority under Rule 7 of M.P. Accommodation Control Rules, 1966. Rule 3 prescribes that an application under Ss.10 and 17 shall be in Form-A while under Rule 6 an application not hereinbefore specified in these rules shall, so far as may be, made in Form-A and shall state the grounds on which it is made. The form does not require the landlord to mention as to when the cause of action arose or the court-fee payable. Obviously, therefore, an application filed before the Rent Controlling Authority cannot be a plaint, though for a limited purpose it should be signed and verified in a manner provided for a plaint. This requirement would not make an application a plaint. Otherwise also, the application under section 23-A is to be disposed of by an order against which a revision lies. If it were a plaint, then it must be followed by a judgment and decree and normally appeal would lie, though under S.35 Rent Controlling Authority has been given powers of civil Court for execution of any of its order under Chap. III-A as a decree of a civil Court. But this can not make the order of Rent Controlling Authority a decree. On an application presented to civil, criminal or revenue Court, or to Collector or any revenue officer, or to any Magistrate in his executive capacity, and not otherwise provided for, a court-fee is payable under clause (6) of Art.1(b) of Sch.II of the Court-fees Act and according to us this Article will cover the question of payment of court-fee on an application under S.23-A of the Act also.