SHAH BABULAL Vs. MELA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The plaintiff landlord is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 110 of 1988. A suit for eviction was filed under Sections 12 (l) (c) and (f) of the madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for eviction of the defendant tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the premises are needed bona fide for the purpose of running a shop of agricultural-related medicines (insecticides). The learned trial Judge decreed the said suit by judgment dated 3-12-1983 coming to a positive conclusion that the landlord has proved the fact that the premises are needed bona fide. The tenant then preferred an appeal and the lower appellate court reappreciated the entire evidence and dismissed the same agreeing with the conclusion and finding of the learned trial Judge. The respondent tenant preferred a second appeal to the High Court which was registered as Second appeal No. 110 of 1988. In course of hearing of the said second appeal, the high Court permitted the defendant-petitioner after coming to the conclusion that on the findings arrived at by the courts of facts, it would not be possible to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the civil Procedure Code to amend the written statements. The amendment allowed was in relation to the question whether the landlord had in the meantime got sufficient accommodation which would disentitle him to get the premises for the purpose of which original application was filed. Having allowed the written statement, the High Court itself kept the second appeal with the Court but remitted the limited issue for a finding to the learned trial judge. When the matter went back to the learned trial Judge, the trial Judge gave a finding even on the new issue in favour of the landlord. When the findings of the trial Judge came to be considered before the High Court, the high Court did not agree with those findings and ultimately disposed of the second appeal by coming to the conclusion that the bona fide need of the landlord no longer existed and accordingly allowed the second appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is this judgment and decree of the High Court in second appeal which is assailed before us.

(3.) Dr Dhavan appearing for the plaintiff-appellant contends that a bare perusal of the judgment would indicate that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 by reappreciating the entire material and coming to its own conclusion on the facts. Mr Sanghi appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that a new issue having been framed and new conclusion having been arrived at, the High Court was fully entitled to consider the legality of those findings of the learned trial Judge and was entitled to interfere with those findings. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the impugned judgment we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious error of law and jurisdiction by invoking its power under Section 100 of the civil Procedure Code in the matter of appreciation of evidence and coming to its own conclusion for non-suiting the plaintiff. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and affirm the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge which was upheld by the lower appellate court. The appeal is allowed. The second appeal of the defendant stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.