SAKVATE T B Vs. NEMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant a medical practitioner has been occupying as a tenant, the ground-floor of a house Block No. 732 at Lordganj, Jabalpur, for his dispensary for the last more than thirty years. On a family partition Block No. 732 was allotted to the share of the Respondent Nemi Chand s/o Ballolal and he has since August 1956 been occupying the upper-floor of the house for his residence. With the sanction of the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, granted under section 13(i), (v) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, the Respondent served a notice upon the Appellant terminating the tenancy and commenced an: action in the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, for a decree in ejectment against the Appellant and for mesne profits from April 1, 1958 till the date of eviction. The appellant resisted the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act 23 of 1955, was extended to the whole of the Madhya Pradesh State, with effect from January 1, 1959 and the title of the Act was altered and it was entitled the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. By Section 4 of that Act no suit lay in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any "accommodation except on one or more of the grounds specified in the section, and in Section 17 it was provided that in all suits for eviction of tenants from any "accommodation" pending on the date of the commencement of the Act, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 4 of the Act. The respondent then amended his plaint by adding paragraph 1-A averring that the premises in suit were suitable for residential purposes, and that the premises were let for residential purposes, though the Appellant used the premises for non-residential purposes.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action had to be tried and disposed of as if the new act did not apply thereto. In appeal the District Court set aside the decree and remanded the action for decision on the following two issues:-

(3.) The Respondent thereafter again amended the plaint by averring that the premises in suit were suitable for business purposes and as he, the Respondent could "not effectively and profitably run his business" in Sarees, "it was essential for him to require the premises in suit for business purposes also", that he required the premises for the purpose of running his business, and that he had no other premises in his occupation for that purpose. The trial Court framed two additional issues directed to the questions whether the Respondent genuinely required the suit premises for his residence and; whether the Respondent genuinely required the suit premises for running a cloth shop.