Special eviction forum jurisdiction upheld where qualified co-landlord joined with other owners in a common bona fide requirement claim.

A common eviction claim under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act remained maintainable before the Rent Controlling Authority where a qualified widow joined with major sons who were not themselves within the special category, because the cause of action was common and the substantive claim still fell within the special provision. The Court held that joinder of co-landlords outside Section 23-J did not alter the character of the proceeding or oust jurisdiction. It also accepted the concurrent finding that the landlords genuinely needed the ground-floor shops for business and that the alleged alternatives, including a first-floor premises and tenanted accommodation, were not reasonably suitable. The eviction orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a landlord-claim for eviction based on bona fide non-residential requirement, when jointly asserted by a widow falling within the special category and her major sons who do not fall within that category, could be maintained before the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961; and (ii) whether bona fide requirement and absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation were proved.

Issue (i): whether a landlord-claim for eviction based on bona fide non-residential requirement, when jointly asserted by a widow falling within the special category and her major sons who do not fall within that category, could be maintained before the Rent Controlling Authority under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: Chapter III-A gives a special remedy before the Rent Controlling Authority to landlords falling within Section 23-J for claims covered by Section 23-A. The Court held that where the cause of action is common and the claim is effectively that of a qualified landlord for the benefit of major sons, the presence of co-landlords who are not themselves within Section 23-J does not change the essential nature of the claim or deprive the Rent Controlling Authority of jurisdiction. The Court relied on the principles that a co-owner may sue for eviction, that the plaintiff is dominus litis, and that joinder of proper parties does not alter the basic character of the proceeding. The choice of forum, in such a situation, lies with the landlords.

Conclusion: the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority were maintainable and were not vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether bona fide requirement and absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation were proved.

Analysis: The Court accepted the concurrent findings that the landlords genuinely required the ground-floor shops for business use and that the suggested alternatives were not reasonably suitable. A tenanted premises does not qualify as an alternative accommodation of the landlord's own, and a first-floor premises was held not to be comparable to a ground-floor shop for the proposed commercial use. The Court found no material to disturb the factual findings recorded by the authorities below.

Conclusion: bona fide requirement was proved and the plea of available suitable alternative accommodation failed.

Final Conclusion: the appeals failed on both jurisdiction and merits, and the eviction orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: where a common eviction claim is jointly made by co-landlords, one of whom is within the special statutory category entitled to proceed before the special forum, the inclusion of co-landlords outside that category does not oust the special forum's jurisdiction if the substantive claim falls within the special provision and the forum choice is consistent with the common cause of action.

---