SOBHAGYAMAL Vs. PRAKASH PHARMACEUTICALS INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under S.23-E of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') has been preferred by the landlord/ petitioner, aggrieved of the order dated 26-8-1987, passed in Case No.90(7) 110/ 85-86 by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (for short, the 'Rent Controller'), whereby the application under S.23-A(b) of the Act for eviction of the tenant/ respondent from the non-residential accommodation, has been dismissed.

(2.) The circumstances giving rise to this revision are: The petitioner/ landlord filed an application under S.23-A(b) of the Act for invoking the special jurisdiction conferred on the Rent Controller under Chapter III-A on the ground that the petitioner is a retired servant of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, the 'Corporation') who falls within the definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A, as specified in S.23-J of the Act. After service of summons, the respondent/ tenant raised a jurisdictional objection; that neither the petitioner is a retired Government servant, nor is a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled either by the Central or State Government; therefore, the application of the petitioner/ landlord is not tenable. The Rent Controller, after hearing, dismissed the application holding that an employee of the Corporation does not fall within the category specified either under Cl. (i) or Cl. (ii) of S.23-J of the Act. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(3.) The contention of Shri M. Dalal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Corporation is a corporate body established under (The) Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Corporation Act') whereby, after nationalisation of life insurance business, all such business was transferred to the Corporation, established under the Corporation Act. The preamble of the Corporation Act clearly shows that it is a controlled business of life insurance by the Central Government. Though the Corporation has been established and constituted under Ss.3 and 4 of the Corporation Act, if one goes through the various provisions of the Corporation Act, the structure of the Corporation indicates that the Corporation is an agency of the Central Government carrying on life insurance business. Therefore, the Corporation is an authority under Art.12 of the Constitution of India; a retired servant of such a Corporation will be termed as a servant of any Government. In any case, the servant of the Corporation will be a servant of a company owned or controlled by the Central Government. Therefore, if the case does not fall under category (i), certainly a retired servant of the Corporation, under Cl. (ii) of S.23-J, is a landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A and is entitled to approach the Rent Controller for seeking eviction of his tenant on the ground of "bona fide" requirement. Shri S.N.Sanyal, learned Counsel for the respondent/ tenant, submitted that the order of the Rent Controller is in accordance with law; a Corporation cannot be treated as a Company, unless it is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Companies Act'); the Corporation can also not be said to be a Government department and a retired servant of such Corporation cannot be said to be a Government servant; therefore, neither the petitioner was a retired Government servant nor he is a retired servant of a Company owned or controlled by the Central or State Government, hence, the Rent Controller rightly rejected the application.