G.G. Sohani, Ag. C.J.

1. This case has come up before us for consideration of a question of law referred to a Larger Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows: An application was filed by the non-applicants u/s. 23-A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of the applicant from the leased premises on the ground that the said accommodation was bona fide required for the purpose of starting the business of non-applicant No. 3, the major son of non-applicant No. I, widow of the deceased landlord. The claim of the non-applicants was resisted by the applicant, but the Rent Controlling Authority found, after appreciating the material on record, that the ground for eviction specified in clause (b) of S.23-A of the Act was made out. The Rent Controlling Authority accordingly directed the applicant to put the non applicants in possession of the leased premises. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant preferred a revision application before this Court At the time of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that no relief could have been granted by the Rent Controlling Authority to the non-applicants because except non-applicant No. 1 who was the widow of the deceased landlord, other non-applicants were not landlords* as defined by section 23-J of the Act and the special procedure provided by section 23-A of the Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, was not available to the non-applicants. Reliance was placed on the decision in Sushila Devi Somani v. Kedarnath Gupta : 1987 JLJ 450. [LQ/MPHC/1986/342] The learned Single Judge felt that there was conflict between that decision and the other decisions of this Court reported in Shankarlal v. Samuat and others 1987 MPRCJ 32, Smt. Saroj Thareja and another v. Smt. Tara Bai and others 1988 MPRCJ 99 and Ratanbai v. Chetandas 1986 MPRCJ 69, To resolve this conflict, the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to a larger Bench to consider the question whether a suit by joint landlords out of whom one is a landlord u/s 23-J of the Act, could be entertained by the Rent Controlling Authority if the need is that of a major son or daughter who is also an owner of the suit premises.

3. Shri Agrawal, Learned Counsel for the applicant, contended that except non-applicant No. 1, the other co-owners of the suit premises were not landlords within the meaning of that expression as defined by section 23-J of the Act and that non-applicant No. 1 was not entitled to seek the relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of any other non-applicant who did not fall in the category of a landlord as defined by section 23-J of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision in Sushila Devi Somani (Smt.) v. Kedarnath Gupta (supra). In reply, Shri Jain, Learned Counsel for the non-applicants, contended that any one co-owner who was landlord* as defined by section 23-J of the Act, was entitled to seek eviction if any of the grounds for eviction specified in section 23-A of the Act was made out.

4. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 23-A of the Act enables a landlord to seek the relief of eviction against a tenant from the Rent Controlling Authority on any ground specified in that provision. The ground specified in clause (b) of section 23-A of the Act is as follows :--

23-A (b): that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bona fide by the landlord for the purposes of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters, if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned.

Now section 23-A falls in Chapter III-A of the Act and for the purposes of Chapter III-A, a landlord has been defined as follows :

23-J. Definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A-For the purposes of this Chapter, landlord means a landlord who is:

(i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Service; or

(ii) a retired servant of a company owned or controlled either by the Central Government; or

(iii) a widow or a divorced wife, or

(iv) physically handicapped person; or

(v) a servant of any Government including a member of Defence Service who, according to his service conditions, is not entitled to Government accommodation on his posting to a place where he owns a house or is entitled to such accommodation only on payment of a penal rent on his posting to such a place.

In view of the aforesaid provisions, two questions arise for consideration : One whether non applicant No. 1 aolne is entitled to maintain an action for eviction and Two, whether non-applicant No. 1 is entitled to the relief of eviction on the ground that the accommodation in question which was let out for non-residential purposes, is bona fide required by her for the purpose of starting the business of her major son.

5. As regards the first question as to whether anyone of the co-owners can maintain an action for eviction, the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court in Pal Singh v. Shri Sunder Singh (dead) by L. Rs. and others 1989 I SVLR (C) 54. The Supreme Court has held that where other co-owners do not object to the eviction, one co-owner can maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of other co owners. In the instant case, the other co-owners have joined with non-applicant No. 1 in the action of eviction and, therefore, it is evident that they do not object to eviction of the applicant. Non-applicant No. 1 is a landlord as defined by section 23-J of the Act and hence she would be entitled to file an application for eviction u/s 23-A of of the Act The fact that other non-applicants have joined her in that action to signify that they do not object to eviction, cannot disentitle her to seek relief u/s. 23-A of the Act which she is otherwise entitled to get under that provision.

6. The next question for consideration is whether non- applicant No 1 is entitled to the relief of eviction on the ground that the leased premises is bona fide required by her for starting the busines of her major son. Clause (b) of section 23-A of the Act makes a specific provision in that behalf and there is no room for any ambiguity. To deny relief of eviction to a landlord falling within the category of landlords as specified by section 23-J of the Act, even after making out a ground for eviction specifically provided by clause (b) of section 23-A of the Act would mean not giving effect to the provisions of clause (b) of section 23 A of the Act. When legislation enables a landlord to seek eviction if the leased premises are bona fide required by the landlord for starting the business of a major sod or daughter of the landlord, there can be no logic or justification for denying that relief to the landlord, because the major son or daughter of the landlord also happens to be co-owner of the leased premises As laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanai Lal Sur. v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan : AIR 1957 SC 907 [LQ/SC/1957/81] , if the words used are capable of one construction only, then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged objects and policy of the Act. The decision in Sushila Devi Somani case (supra) that unless the accommodation is required by the widow to start her business, she is not entitled to the relief of eviction, fails to give effect to the mandate of law contained in clause (b) of section 23-A of the Act and with respect, does not, in our opinion, lay down correct law. Our answer to the question referred by the learned Single Judge is that a suit by joint landlords out of whom one is a landlord within the meaning of that expression as defined by section 23-J of the Act, can be entertained by the Rent Controlling Authority and when the other co-owners, if any, do not object to eviction, the relief of eviction can be granted if the accommonation is bona fide required by the landlord for starting the business of the major son or daughter.

7. The case shall now go back before the learned Single Judge for disposal. In the circumstance of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this revision.