PRATAP RAI TANWANI Vs. UTTAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants are in appeal against the impugned judgment of the Vllth civil judge no. 2, Bhopal, M. P. , the first appellate court, and finally the judgment of affirmation by learned single judge of the Madhya pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(2.) A suit for eviction was filed before the trial court under section 12 (1) (a) (b) and (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control Act, 1961 (in short the 'act'). The plaintiffs filed the suit on the ground that (a) there was default in payments of the rent due, (b) the tenant (defendant No. 1) had unlawfully sublet the tenanted premises and (c) for bona fide requirement. The trial court framed, in total, 13 issues and held that the need of the plaintiffs, so far as the suit premises are concerned, was genuine and bona fide. It was also held that the plaintiffs had not got other suitable accommodation available and the defendant no. 1 had sublet the premises to defendant no. 2. The suit was accordingly decreed.

(3.) In appeal the appellate authority held that the plea of subletting was not established. However, the finding regarding bona fide need was affirmed by the first appellate court. In second appeal the judgments of the courts below, so far as it was adverse to the appellant, were affirmed. Tenants filed an application in terms of Order 41, rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (in short the 'cpc'). Another application for amendment of the written statement was also filed. By these two applications the appellants wanted to highlight the alleged factual position that during the pendency of the matter Naresh Talreja son of the appellant no. 1, Uttam Chand (respondent no. 1 herein) had acquired a degree in engineering, got an employment in an Indian company and subsequently was settled in usa and was working there, with no chance of his coming back to India. Therefore it was submitted that the alleged bona fide need and requirement, for which the application was filed, had become nonexistent, thereby disentitling the plaintiffs from any relief.