NARENDRA KUMAR VAISH Vs. SHYAMA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-Applicant had initiated proceedings under Section 23-A (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') being a widow lady, for eviction of the shop of her house bearing Municipal No. 40/574 situated in Daulatganj, Lashkar:Gwalior, against petitioner/non-applicant, before the Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior (in short 'R.C.A.'), on the ground that the shop was let out to non-applicant under a rent note dated 7-9-1974. The son of the applicant-land lady Manish Kumar Agrawal has passed B.E. (Mechanical) in the year 1990 and roaming unemployed. The applicant needs this shop for starting business of her son for sale of electrical goods.

(2.) The petitioner/non-applicant had contested the proceedings on the ground that the shop was given to him on rent by late Suman Kant, who was husband of the applicant and Suman Kant during his lifetime, under a family arrangement, had transferred the disputed shop to his son Manish Kumar and further directed non-applicant-petitioner to pay rent of the shop to Manish Kumar. In the circumstances, ownership of the applicant in so far as disputed shop is concerned, was denied and it was further pleaded that the proceedings for eviction of the shop are not maintainable in absence of all the necessary heirs of late Suman Kant.

(3.) The occasion to file present revision arose at the time when applicant/respondent was examined before the said authority and during her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband Suman Kant was adopted by late Jagannath Prasad and Kishan was the natural father of Suman Kant. The petitioner then filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the written statement to the effect that plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the suit property in name of her husband Suman Kant. The learned R.C.A. by impugned order found that in facts and circumstances of the case, the proposed amendment is wholly irrelevant and, therefore, rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, petitioner/tenant has come up in this revision praying for redressal of his grievance as sought for.