CHUNEELA KUMARI Vs. KARUNASHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under S.23-E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 arises under these circumstances.

(2.) On 26-3-1964, the non-applicant/landlord filed an application under S.23-A(a) of the Act claiming eviction of the applicant from the accommodation in question on the ground that it was required bona fide by him for his residence. After obtaining due leave to defend, the applicant filed her written statement on 26-6-1984. Some evidence was also recorded. Before the application could be finally decided, M.P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (No. 1 of 1985) was promulgated with effect from 16th day of January, 1985. This Ordinance later was superseded by M. P. Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 7 of 1985) which came into force on 5-4-1985. The Ordinance and the Act inserted S.23-J whereunder 'Landlord' has been separately defined for the purpose of Chapter III-A which contains Sections 23-A to 23-J. By this substituted definition of 'landlord' in S.23-J the meaning attributed to that term earlier is restricted. Consequently, certain applications for ejectment of tenants pending on the file of the Rent Controlling Authority were withdrawn and sent to the new forum, viz., Civil Court for adjudication. The non applicant/landlord in this present case, however, applied to the Rent Controlling Authority for continuance of the proceedings alleging that the authority still retained jurisdiction to hear and decide that application because he was a 'physically handicapped person' as envisaged by cl.(iv) of S.23-J. This application was opposed and it was asserted that on the face of it the application disclosed that it could not be entertained by that authority. By the impugned order, this contention has been rejected.

(3.) Clause 10 of the Ordinance 1 of 1985, which is more or less similar to S.9 of Act No. 7 of 1985 is as follows :