B JOHNSON Vs. C S NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for decision in this case is the constitutional validity of the amendments made in the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, by the two amending Acts, namely, M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (M. P. Act No.27 of 1983) and the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1985, (M. P. Act No.7 of 1985). The M.P. Act No.7 of 1985 replaces the M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (No.1 of 1985) and therefore, reference to the Ordinance is now not necessary.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent and proceeding was commenced by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controlling Authority on the ground of respondent's bona fide need, which is governed by section 23 - A of the amended Act. The petitioner filed an application under section 113, C.P.C. before the Rent Controlling Authority for a reference to be made to this Court for deciding the constitutional validity of the amended provisions, but the same having been rejected, this petition under Article 228 of the Constitution has been filed for the same purpose. This is how the question of vires of the aforesaid Amendment Acts arises for decision in this case.

(3.) In the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. (hereinafter called the 'Principal Act'), several clauses in sub-section (1) of section 12, contain the grounds on which a tenant may be evicted. Clauses (e) and (f) therein contain grounds for eviction of the tenant on the basis of bona fide requirement of accommodation for residential or non-residential purposes respectively. A suit for eviction is required to be filed in the civil Court on one or more of these grounds permitting eviction. The purpose of enacting the M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1983 (hereinafter called the '1983 Amendment Act') is primarily to provide for the expeditious trial of eviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The effect of this amendment substantially was to omit clauses (e) and (f) from sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Principal Act as well as sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) therein; to amend section 13; to omit sections 17,20-A and 20AA; and to insert a new Chapter III-A in the Principal Act in order to provide for eviction of tenants on grounds of bona fide requirement, containing sections 23- A to 23-I. A new section 35 was substituted to give powers of the civil Court to the Rent Controlling Authority for execution of an order made under Chapter III-A; and section 43 was amended by substitution of sub-section (4) therein to provide for penalty for re-letting or transfer of any part of the accommodation in contravention of sub-section (3) or (4) of section 23-C. Section 12 of the Amendment Act provided for the pending suits and proceedings in the civil Courts. The net result of the amendments made by the 1983 Amendment Act was that the grounds of bona fide requirement of the landlord, which were earlier contained in clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the principal Act, were now in section 23-A and proceedings for eviction of tenants on these grounds were to lie before the Rent Controlling Authority, governed by the special procedure enacted in the newly added Chapter III-A; and the pending suits and proceedings were to be governed by section 12 of the Amendment Act.