2019 APEX COURT JUDGEMENTS – VOL.NO.1 & 2019 APEX COURT DIGEST -VOL-1
- Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -Section 23-J(ii) of the Act.- The landlord obtained an order of eviction of his tenant under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 by taking recourse to the special procedure contemplated under Chapter IIIA of the Act. -Calling into question the entitlement of the landlord to avail of the special procedure under Chapter IIIA of the Act on the ground that he is not a landlord within the meaning of the said expression as appearing in Section 23-J(ii) of the Act, a revision petition was filed before the High Court. The said revision led to a reference to a Full Bench of the High court. Two learned Judges of the High Court held that the appellant would not be a landlord within the meaning of Section 23-J(ii) of the Act. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed – Apex court held that We have noticed the special procedure and the special forum available
for the categories of landlords specified in Section 23-J of the Act. They include:
retired Government servants; retired servant of a company owned or controlled
either by the Central or State Government; a widow or a divorced wife; physically
handicapped person; a retired member of the defence service. The object of creating a
special procedure and special forum by incorporating Chapter IIIA in the Act is to
provide a more efficacious and speedy remedy to a category of landlords to obtain
speedy possession of the premises which he/she/they may have let out.
If the object of Chapter IIIA of the Act is to provide a speedy remedy and a special forum for a category of persons who have retired from service we do not see how the retired employees of a Municipal Corporation can be legitimately excluded from the provisions of Section 23-J(ii) of the Act. Doing so would be putting Section 23-J of the Act itself to jeopardy. The object of the Act being what has been noticed above, the classification of retired persons by inclusion of one class i.e. Government service etc. and exclusion
of another i.e. of Municipal Corporation, in our considered view, would render the
provisions of Section 23-J(ii) constitutionally fragile.
We, therefore, are of the view that reading the provisions of Section 23-J(ii) of the Act to include retired employees of the Municipal Corporation would further the object behind the enactment of Chapter IIIA of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the appellant landlord was fully entitled to avail of the special procedure enjoined by Chapter IIIA of the Act and the decree of eviction obtained by him cannot be faulted on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal/Forum which had decided the matter.