LAXMI NARAYAN GUPTA Vs. JANKI BALLABH BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this revision is that the suit for eviction of the petitioner was not maintainable in the Civil Court, on the ground that one of the landlords, respondent No. 1 was a retired Government Servant and the tenancy was in occupation of the petitioner while the respondent No. 1 was in service.

(2.) THE answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of section 23-J of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter, referred to as the Act' ). The word 'landlord' has been defined in this section 23-J as a retired Government Servant when the accommodation is already let out during his service tenure, and in that event, a retired Government Servant can move an application for eviction under section 23-A of the Act, only before the Rent Controlling Authority, and no civil suit lies.

(3.) THE facts of this case are slightly different. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant was a tenant in a different portion of the same house. After retirement of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, the defendant was shifted in a different portion of the same house as a tenant. This, according to the respondents, was a creation of a separate tenancy, and section 23-J of the Act has no application. According to the respondents, the defendant has been put in a different portion of the house, no doubt as a tenant after retirement of the respondent No. 1 and that is a creation of a separate tenancy, and in such a case, there is no application of section 23-J of the Act, and therefore, a suit for eviction is maintainable in Civil Court. That contention has been accepted by the trial Court on the preliminary issue and the suit is held to be maintainable in Civil Court.