^^.: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench : Hon'bte Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. ApDlicants Petitioner Resoondent Non-applicant C.R.No. 02/2006 (1) Smt. Manju Ghosh W/o Shyama Prasad, R/o MIG C/458, F^idmanabhpur, Durg, TahsU and DJstrict Durg (C.G.) (2) Sandeep Ghosh S/o Shyama Prasad Ghosh, R/o MIG C/458. Padmanabhpur, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) (3) Sanjay Ghosh S/o late Shyama Prasad Ghosh, R/o House No. MK3/458 Padmanabhpur, Durg, TahsW and District Durg (C.G.) versus Shri M.S. Bisen S/o R.S.Bisen, Retired District Senani, R/o MIG C/517, Padmanabhpur, Durg. Tahsil and DJstrictDurg (CG) Revision underSection 23 E.M.P. Accommodation Act. 1961 Present: Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, counset for the appUcants/petJtjoners. Shri Amiya Kant Tiwari, counsel for the respondent/non-applicant ORAL ORDER (Passed on 7m of April, 2008) Learned counsel fbr the parties were heard finatty. 2. This revision is directed against an order dated 30.11 .2005 passed by the Rent Confrolling Aythority, Durg (henceforth 'the R.C.A.) in case No.12/A-90/2004-2005 granting decree of eviction against the applteants under Section 23-A ofthe Chhattisgarh Accommodatjon Control Act, 1961 (henceforth 'the Act'). 3. Admjttedly the non-applicant M.S.Bisen had purchased ttie surt accommodation on 28th March, 2005 after his retirement on 30.04.1^8 INWIIIIIU^.'<- ^*^. -2. from the post of District Commandant, Home Guards. Proceedings under Section 23-A of the Act were initiated before the R.C.A. on 12.07.2005. 4. Shri Ram Kumar Thwari, tearned counsel for the applicants urgect that the application under Section 23-A of the Act fited before the R. C. A., Durg, was premature and not maintainabte in view of the proviso to Section 23-A of the Act whereunder no applicafion for evfction of the tenant was maintajnabte untess a period ofone year had elapsed from the date of acquisition of the accommodation by the non-appjicant. 5. Shri Amiya Kant Twvari, leamed counsel for the non-applteant did not dispute the above contention of the learned counsel for the appticants. 6. Having heard the leamed counsel for ttie parties, 1 have perused the record. Chapter Jtt-A of the Act deats wtth the evictjon of the tenant on ground of bona fide requirement. Section 23-A of the Act is a speciat provjsion enacted for evicUon of tenant on ground of bona fide requtrement. An appHcation under Sectron 23-A of the Act for evicUon of a tenant on ground of bona fide requirement can be fried by a person ^io talls within the definition of landlord given under Section 23-J of the ftst. Section 23-A of the Act reads as under: "23-A. Special provisjon for evictfon of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the tfme being in force orcontract to the contrary, a landlord may submft an applicatjon, signed and vertfied in a manner provided in rutes 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedute to the Code of dvil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) as if it were a plaint to the Rent ControHing Authorfty on one or more of the foltowing grounds for an order directing the tenant to put the jandlord in possession of the accommodation, namely:- (a) that the accommodation tet for restelential purposes is required "bona fkle" by the landlord for occupatton as -3 resictence for himself or for any member of his fiamily, or fbr any person for whose benefrt, the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suttabte residentiat accommodation of his own in his occupafion jn the city ortownconcerned. Explanation. - For the purposes of this cfause, ''accommodaffonletforresklenWpurposes" inchsdes— (i) any accommodatfon whteh having been let for use as a residence is without the e^ress consent of the landlord, used wholly or partfy for any non-residential purpose; (ii) any accommodation whfeh has not been let under an express provision of confract for non- residential purpose; (b)that the accommodatton tet for non-residential purposes is required "fcona ffcte"by the landlord for the purpose of contjnuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughtera, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the tandlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non- residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concemed: Provided that where a person who is a landlord has acquired any accommodation or any jnterest therein by transfer, no application for eviclion of tenant of such accommodation shall be maintainable at the instance of such person unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acquisltion." 7. A reading of the proviso to Section 23-A of the Act teaves no room for any doubt that where a person claims to have acquired the status of a landlord on acquisition of any accommodation, no apptication for eviGtion of a tenant from such accommodation shall be maintainabte at his instance unless a period of one year has elapsed from the date of such acqujsition. In the present case, admjttedly, the accommodation was acquired by the non-applfcant on 28.03.2005. Therefore.the application liN-miia1 ; \ l -^- under Section 23-A of the Act preferred by ttie non-applicant wi 12.07.2005 was premature as no such application could be ffled before the expiry of one year from the date of acquisftjon of the accommodation. In thi's view of the matter, the application under Section 23-A of the Act on the date of jts filing was not majntainable. Therefore, the R. C. A. acted in contravention of jaw in passing the Impugned order for evictjon of the applicants. 8. The revision is altowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2005 ordering eviction of the applicants is set aside. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge '\: