1989 JTR(MP) 404
1990 1 MPWN 49
B. B. L. Shrivastava, J.
Seetaram Sharma (Leiut. Colonel) v. Rent Controlling Authority.
C. R. No. 360 of 1987 (I); Decided on 25-10-1989.
Act Referred :MADHYA PRADESH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT : S.23(j), S.23(a)
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.)-Ss. 23-J and 23-A- property acquired after retirement landlord not covered under S. 23-J -eviction proceedings under S. 23 A not maintainable.
LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½&/kkjk 23&ts ,oa 23,&laifRr lsok fuo`fr ds i‘pkr~ izkIr dh xbZ&Hkw&Lokeh /kkjk 23&ts ds varxZr ugha vkrk&/kkjk 23&, ds varxZr csn[kyh dh dk;Zokgh pykus ;ksX; ughaA
This revision is directed against order dated 14-8- 87 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (in eviction matter No. A 90/7/353/84-85) holding that the applicant was not covered under section 23) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, as he had acquired the property in question after his retirement, which is an admitted fact vide order sheet dated 24-10-89 of the instant petition.
In this revision there is prayer for not only quashing the aforesaid order, of the Rent Controlling Authority, but also for referring the matter to larger Bench, as the Single Bench decision of this Court (relied by the Rent Controlling Authority while passing the order) is challenged.
Respondent No. 2 asserted that the order in question is perfectly correct as per AIR 1984 Supreme Court page 448 Winifred Ross v. Ivy Fonseca.
The aforesaid Supreme Court decision (AIR 1984 Supreme Court page 448) very clearly lays down that benefit of such provisions (which existed in State of Maharashtra also) is only for those members of the armed forces who were landlords of the premises in question while they were in service even though they may avail of it after their retirement-the essential requirement being that he should have leased out the premises, while he was member of the armed forces.
In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, which dealt with identical provisions of State of Maharashtra, this revision is without any force and is, therefore, dismissed. AIR 1984 SC 448 followed. Revision dismissed.
LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼eŒizŒ½&/kkjk 23&ts ,oa 23,&laifRr lsok fuo`fr ds i‘pkr~ izkIr dh xbZ&Hkw&Lokeh /kkjk 23&ts ds varxZr ugha vkrk&/kkjk 23&, ds varxZr csn[kyh dh dk;Zokgh pykus ;ksX; ughaA
This revision is directed against order dated 14-8- 87 of the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore (in eviction matter No. A 90/7/353/84-85) holding that the applicant was not covered under section 23) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, as he had acquired the property in question after his retirement, which is an admitted fact vide order sheet dated 24-10-89 of the instant petition.
In this revision there is prayer for not only quashing the aforesaid order, of the Rent Controlling Authority, but also for referring the matter to larger Bench, as the Single Bench decision of this Court (relied by the Rent Controlling Authority while passing the order) is challenged.
Respondent No. 2 asserted that the order in question is perfectly correct as per AIR 1984 Supreme Court page 448 Winifred Ross v. Ivy Fonseca.
The aforesaid Supreme Court decision (AIR 1984 Supreme Court page 448) very clearly lays down that benefit of such provisions (which existed in State of Maharashtra also) is only for those members of the armed forces who were landlords of the premises in question while they were in service even though they may avail of it after their retirement-the essential requirement being that he should have leased out the premises, while he was member of the armed forces.
In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, which dealt with identical provisions of State of Maharashtra, this revision is without any force and is, therefore, dismissed. AIR 1984 SC 448 followed. Revision dismissed.
Chaphekar and Kokje for applicant; Agarwal for non-applicant
.