Strict statutory summons form is mandatory in special eviction cases; non-compliance invalidates the eviction order.

Section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act was read to permit eviction for the bona fide business need of a grandson where the accommodation is held for that person's benefit, so that ground was treated as maintainable. Sections 23-B and 23-C(1) were read together to require strict service of summons in the Second Schedule form, because the prescribed notice must warn the tenant to seek leave within fifteen days on affidavit and of the consequence of deemed admission. A general notice lacking those statutory warnings was treated as invalid, and the eviction order was set aside without proof of prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether eviction could be sought on the ground of bona fide need for a grandson under Section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961; (ii) whether service of summons in the form prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 23-B(1) was mandatory and whether non-compliance vitiated the eviction order.

Issue (i): whether eviction could be sought on the ground of bona fide need for a grandson under Section 23-A(b) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 23-A(b) permits eviction where the accommodation is bona fide required by the landlord for continuing or starting his business, or that of his major sons or unmarried daughters, and also for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held. The requirement pleaded by the landlady was for her grandson, and the statutory language was read to include such a person when the accommodation is held for his benefit.

Conclusion: The ground of requirement for the grandson was held maintainable and was not rejected on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether service of summons in the form prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 23-B(1) was mandatory and whether non-compliance vitiated the eviction order.

Analysis: Sections 23-B and 23-C(1) were read together. The prescribed summons informs the tenant that leave to contest must be sought within fifteen days by an affidavit-supported application and that failure to do so results in deemed admission and eviction. Because the statute attaches a drastic consequence to non-compliance, the prescribed form of summons was held to be mandatory. The notice actually served was a general notice and did not contain the statutory warnings or directions required by the Second Schedule. In such a case, no separate proof of prejudice was necessary, and the eviction order could not stand.

Conclusion: The notice was held invalid for want of compliance with the mandatory statutory form, and the eviction order was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded in part, the eviction order was set aside, and the matter was sent back to the Rent Controlling Authority for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special eviction statute prescribes service of summons in a particular form and attaches eviction consequences to failure to seek leave within the stipulated time, strict compliance with that prescribed form is mandatory, and non-compliance invalidates the resulting eviction order without requiring proof of prejudice.

---