Judgment:
ORDER
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. Applicant/tenant has directed this revision against the order dtd. 27-7-2000 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. A-90(7)52/99, thereby allowing application filed on behalf of the non-applicant/landlord for eviction of the applicant under Section 23-A (b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act (for short the Act).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that - The non-applicant landlord who is a retired employee of the High Court of M.P. Indore Bench, on his retirement, filed an application before the R.C.A. for eviction of the applicant (tenant), from the two rooms situated on the ground floor of House No. 31 (old No. 30/2) Ramganj, Jinsi Main Road, Indore. It is alleged in the application that the aforesaid two rooms of the ground floor were let out to applicant under the agreement of tenancy for the non-residential purpose on monthly rent of rent of Rs. 1100/-. In the application the eviction of the applicant/tenant was sought on the ground that the suit accommodation is bonafide required by the landlord for establishing a shop for typing, photocopier machine and stationery business. It is also stated that the non-applicant/landlord is not possessed of any reasonable suitable accommodation of his own for the alleged need of the landlord in Indore city.
3. On obtaining permission to defend the petition, the application filed 'h' is reply and denied the facts with regard to bonafide requirement of the suit accommodation by the landlord for his alleged need of opening a stationery and typing shop in the suit accommodation. The application was mainly opposed on the ground that the non-applicant landlord is possessed of alternate accommodation of his own in which he can establish the typing and stationery shop as stated in the application.
4. Learned R.C.A. on evaluation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, held that from the evidence of the parties, it is established that the suit accommodation in occupation of the applicant/tenant, is required bonafide by the non-applicant/landlord for establishment of typing, stationery and photocopier machine business to earn his livelihood on his retirement from the service. The R.C.A. also held that the non-applicant /landlord, is not possessed of reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the city of Indore for his alleged need and passed the impugned order, directing eviction of the applicant from the suit accommodation. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision under Section 23-E of the Act.
5. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this revision petition was heard finally on merits at the stage of admission.
6. Needless to say that the jurisdiction of this court in a revision filed under Section 23-E of the Act is limited and the scope of interference in the order passed by the R.C.A. under Section 23-E of the Act is little more than the revisional jurisdiction exercisable under Section 115 of the CPC and less than the appellate court exercisable by this court as provided under the law his court exercising powers under Section 23-E of the Act shall normally not interfere in the findings of the fact recorded by the R.C.A unless the court finds that the R.C.A. has mis-read the evidence or ignored to consider the evidence and thereby recorded a perverse finding on the issues under controversy.
7. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the applicant raised a legal objection that as the non-applicant landlord is a retired employee of High Court of M.P., he can not be considered as a retired servant of State or Central Government, as defined under Section 23-J of the Act and the application filed by the non-applicant under Section 23-A (b) of the Act is not maintainable under the law before the R.C.A. Learned counsel contended that the employees of the High Court are governed by Article 229 of the Constitution of India and can not be considered as government servants.
8. A reliance was placed on the decision of of Supreme Court in case of Mrs. Vinifred Ross and Ors. v. Mrs. Ivy Fonseca and Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 458 = 1984 MPRCJ 107).
9. As against this, the counsel appearing for the non-applicant submitted that under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the rules with regard to pay, pension and leave etc. are applied to the employees of the High Court requiring approval of the Governor of the State. Learned counsel also submitted that under Article 229 (3) of the Constitution of India, the salaries, allowances and pension payable to the officers and the employees of the High court shall be charged upon the consolidated funds of the State; as such, despite the right of appointment and administrative control on the officers and the employees, exclusively within the powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court, even then, by virtue of Clause (2) and (3) of Article 229, the officers and the employees of the High Court shall be considered as employees of concerned State.
10. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the legal objections raised on behalf of the petitioner and also perused Article 229 of Constitution of India. On reading Article 229 of the Constitution of India, it emerged that, it confers exclusive powers in the matter of appointments as also with regard to prescribing the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court by rules on the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, and at the same time Article 229(2) provides for the approval of the Governor with regard to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to the salaries, allowances, leave or pension Clause (3) of Article 229 also states that the Administrative expenses of a High Court including salaries, allowances and pensions payable to officers and servants of the Court shall, be charged upon the consolidated funds of the State.
11. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that the officers and the servants appointed by the Chief Justice in the concerned High Court, under the Rules framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 229(1) gives powers of appointment including the power of suspension, dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from the service, to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court; but the rules as regard to the salaries, allowances, leave and pensions, connected with providing of finance by the State Government, the approval of the Governor (government) is necessary. As per Article 229(3) of Constitution salaries, allowances and pension payable to the officers and the servants of the High Court are chargeable from the consolidated funds of the State Government. As such the concerned State Government to some extent, has control over the officers and the servants of the High Court with regard to salaries, allowances, leave and pensions of the said employees, and on this court, a retired employee of the High Court in my considered opinion, can be considered as servant of the government for the purpose of special class of landlords defined under Section 23-J of the Act. The objection raised on behalf of the counsel for the applicant is not sustainable and deserves to be rejected.
12. In view of the scope of interference by this Court exercising revisional powers under Section 23-E of the Act, on perusal of the evidence it emerged that the non-applicant has failed to establish that the alleged need of non-applicant/landlord is not bonafide. From the evidence available on the record, it is established that the non-applicant/landlord is not possessed of any reasonably suitable accommodation of his own in the city of Indore for the alleged need of his establishment of the shop of stationery, typing and photocopier machine. The alternate accommodations suggested by the applicant are used for residential purpose and are not suitable for the alleged need of the landlord for the non-residential purpose. I consider it necessary to mention here that the applicant in his statement has suggested accommodation available with the landlord situated in Krishnabag Colony, of Indore. It is not disputed that the aforesaid accommodation suggested by the applicant can not be considered as accommodation available with the landlord which can be used for his alleged need on the ground that the said house is of the ownership of his wife and it is in occupation of a tenant let out for the residential purpose.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, as also the evidence available on the record and the law applicable, I do not find that the R.C.A. has committed any error or illegality in allowing the application filed on behalf of the non-applicant/landlord for eviction of applicant/tenant filed under Section 23-A (b) of the Act. I do not find any scope for interference in the order impugned of the trial court exercising powers under Section 23-E of the Act.
14. Consequently, this revision petition being devoid of any merit and substance deserves the fate of dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission without any order as to costs.