w-iw..!!:-.—-«i.i.- (^, HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT HLASPUR Civll revteion No. 1230005 SINGLEBENCH: Hon'ble Shri Dillp Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. APPLICANTS (LANDLORDS) Versus RESPONDENT (TENANT) 1. Smt. Fatima Sultana, Wd/o Late Mohammad Ali, aged about 60 years. 2. Ku. Reshma SuKana, D/o Late Mohammed Ali, Aged Efcout 27 yeare 3. Dr. Mumtaj AU S/o Late Mohamraed Ali,agedabout%years. 4. Ku. Rumana Sultana, D/o Late Mohammed Ali, aged about 22 yeare, All R/o Near Itviari Bazar, Marathapara, Dhanrtari, Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.} J 1. Mujatfar Ali Aa-af, S/o Wahab Ali, Aged about45 yars, R/o Near Garib Nawaj Masjid, Risaipara Ward, Dhamtari, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Present :Shri R.S. Patel, Counsel forthe applteants. Shri Sanjsy Patel, counsel for non-applicanfc ORALORDER (Passed on 9th March, 2007) The following order of the Court was passed by Dltip Raosaheb DeshmiAh, J. Hearct. 2. It is not !n dispute that Mohammed Ali, the husband of the applicant No. 1 Smt. Fatima Sultana, since retired from service, had flled an application under Section 23-A of the Chhatti^arh Accomwdation Control Act (hereinafter referred as tfte 'Ad') before the Rent Controlling Authortty.,Dhamtari (hereinafter referred to as the R.G.A.) for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence. During the pendency of theproeeedings before ftie R.CA, Mohammed Ali died and the applicant Smt. Fatima Sultana and her tw daughters and a son vwre impleacted as Legal RepresentaSvss of Mohammed Ali. By the impugned order, the leamed R.C.A. has dismissed the application under Section 23-A of the Act on the ground that after the cteath of Mohammed Ali, no cause of action survived in favour of the wictow Fatima Suttana and ha- daughters and son. TB Kvr 1. - 3. Shri RS.Patel, leamed counsel fu- the applicant submitted thal the impugned order is perva'se since a widow falls under ttie spedat category of landord mentioned in Section-23(J$ of the Act and was entitled to pursue the proceMlings on the ground of bonaflde requiranent for residence, for her own self as also for her daughtere and son. Reliance was placed on Harbans Sinah Vs. Smt. Mararat G. Bhnaariive reported in 1990.M.P.L.J.-112. 3. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for ron-applicant does not oppose this Q'vit Revision and conceded that Ihe order passed by the R.C.A. was not mconformity vwth law. 4. Having heard the rivat contentions, 1 am of the cmadered opinion Ihat the impugned order is paverse sinre a widow deariy fails withln the definttien of Landlord under SecBon 23-J of the Act and can pursue the proceedings before tfie R.C.A. on the ground of her bonafide requirement for resictence. In Dhaitna lal \fe. Katawatibai and others AIR-2002-Supreme Court-2572, it was further hdd by Hon'Me the Sufxeme Oourt that: •Where a widowwho befongs to dassified category oflandord under Sedion-23-J along vrith her tw3 major sons arrayed as co-plaintiffs filed evidion proceedngs before Rent Controlling AuthaTty. on ground of bonafide requirement of mapr sons who recyiired suit prerrises for startlng their business, such requirement deariy falling within pureiew of Section-23-A(b), the proceedings Initided before Rerrt Controlling Authority. is maintainaUe. Merely becausemajor ains/eo-owners do not fall within eategoiy of 'landlord' as deflned by S-23-J it cannot be said that spedal procedure provided by S-23-A of Ad is not available and that eviction proceedngs initiated before Rent Controlling Authority suffer froin want of jurisdctional error.' In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision is atlowed. The impugred CTder is sd aside. The R.C.A., Dhamtari shall decide the applicadon under Section 23-A of the Ad in accordance with law. It is drected that the parties shall appear before ths R.O.A., Dhamtari on 3.4.2007. No further notice shall be required. _J- ^Raos^estanu DiVip :y!S 1