^ » IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 0^> /2006 APPLICANT '(TENANTl ^' z^ ^y ^Wh/ ^\^ y<*' ^^'v ..--•"J^>" <^y %.7 /. ,Awadh Ram Bhonsale, S/o Shri Aaand Ram Bhonsale, aged about 35 years; occupation- Provision Store, R/o. "Anand Kirana Awam General Stores" Kasaridih Chowk, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Versus Sunder Lal Kaushal, aged about 72 years, s/o. Late Shri Baiha Rajn Kaushal, occupation- retired employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, BhUai, R/o Kelabadi / Kasaridih, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 23-E OF THE C.G. ACCOMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961. ^' RESPONDENT (LANDLORDl ~+~ + ^fi^i^ifN^ 'cI^T-^l^'li'qt^ T \..: '3^f ^Tiq!^q, 'gT^FR', '^TRTy: c^.U^^/o^•^ 200 ^1^71TO^> (^?t3^^) y^w^ft^^n^i acldi, 9-1-2006 Mr. U.R.Kost Heard on Respondent/ Steel Plant clamiiag hiai tlie Chliattisgarh filed aa appUcatioii und< possession of the sziit Awadh Rami Bhonsale. iiiider Section 23-C of aniongst otlier grounds retired em.ployee of Bhil^ under Section 23-J of tlij Servant. Learaed Reny disallowed tlie ground 23-J of tlie Act but on| tenaiit for defending tlie 23-A ofttie Act. Only contexil Azithoritv erroneouslv dit is not a Goveiiiiiieiit Seif Section 23-J ofthe Act.' Section 23-^ii AccoBiitiodation ^I^lta^? ^TR^f °^ fe^Tl iN^R '^^'^H^Tr^T |aley, couusel for tlie appMcaiit. lission and M,(C.)P.No. 16/2006. |ao.dlord, a retii'ed employee of Bhilai ^elf to be laiidlord under Section 23-J of Control Act (henceforth 'the Act') tr Section 23-A of fhie Act for recoven7 of accoBimodation from tenant/ appUcajit |Lwadh Ram Bhonsale filed ao. appMcation |he Act for graat of leave to defend and Iso raised a groiind that landlorcl who is a ^i Steel Plaiit is not a. laiidlord as deSjied Act and he is not a retii'ed GoveniBieut 'ontrolliiig Autliority vide iBipugued order tQliat landlord is not covered under Section otiier ground allowe.d the appUcation of ^ppUcation filed by lan.dlord under Section ion raised by tlie appMcant is that leained $aUowed his contentioii that laiidlord who ^ant is not covered under the detlaition of (ii) ofthe Act reads^is below : ~ GKPRJ—FS/78-^200( -50,000. ^-7- XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^ Rrli<=b 371^1 '^RT^'^ft^ c^ c,^^_ + ^•b ^^r ^iNid^, ^T?i^^<o, fsRiroy @? C. ^,^ . &X/^ HW^l ^^{^""'"'"^"^"'"t^T" ^^(^ 'I^^T' ^TT^T'^iT^IT ^TT S. 23-J : ffDefiiiition ofj Chapter III-A 'Iaxidlord^ niealis (i) xxxxx (ii) a retire4 controll^d GoveniBtient; (ui) . xxxxx (iv) xxxxx (v) xxxxx <^l^?(r<^U ^l^^f"? f^t Tf^T^R ^ 3?f^R3TT^r laiidlord for the piirposes of For fhe purposes of this Chapter a laacllbrd who is - xxxxx xxxxx servmit of a comp.aay owned or either by the Central or State ;nt;or xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx" Undisputedly BhU^i Steel Plaiit is owned br coiitrolled by tlie Centfal Govenjinient aiid respondent Sunder Lal Kaushal is retii'ed eniployee o^ reading of the above provisioil, ij| BhUai Steel Plaiit From bai'e is mantfest that»aretired sen/aiit of a coiapaay owned or contai'olted eifher by the Central or State Goveraiaent is a landlord for t4e pun3ose of Chapter III-A of the Act Leaiiied Rent ControUiag eiTor by passiag the impugnecf order does not caU. for aay iiiterft disinissed summarily aad M.(C.)P.No. 16/2006 staiids disp<t AuthoritY^ Durg did not piit aiiy order, tlierefore, the iinpugned ^rence. The revision is Mable to be is accordiiigly disinissed, bsed of Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge [Tft^ ^Ha^