SWARNJEE SINGH Vs. ASHARAM GAMNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant-petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 8-1-1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 71/98 by the VI Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur whereby he has entertained the prayer made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code by the plaintiffs.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the facts necessary for disposal of the civil revision are that Late Asharam Gamne, the predecessor in the interest of non-applicant Nos. 1-A to 1-E filed the aforesaid civil suit for eviction of the tenant- petitioner on the ground that the premises in question was required bona fide for starting a 'kirana' business for himself and his son Shankar Rao. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had no other reasonable suitable accommodation of his own at Raipur town. The defendant-petitioner filed his written statement to the suit contending, inter alia that on the ground floor there are two other shops of which the original plaintiff was the owner and one of the shops had been let out to Gram Seva Samiti which used to carry on the business of selling milk in the name and style of 'goras Bhandar'. It was further pointed out that during the pendency of the suit the said shops had fallen vacant and the plaintiff along with his son Shankar Rao has started a grossery business. Thus, it was averred that the bona fide need had come to an end. As pleaded in the civil revision issues were framed and the matter was heard and the case was posted to 1-9-1994 for delivery of judgment. However, the matter was taken up on 2-9-1994 and time was granted to the plaintiff to make an application for amendment. The application for amendment was filed and the same was allowed. The said order was impugned by the defendant in civil revision No. 1446/94. During the pendency of the revision the learned counsel for the original plaintiff submitted that he would withdraw the application for amendment. Because of this statement the civil revision was dismissed.

(3.) WHILE the matter stood thus, the original plaintiffs Asharam Gamne expired. His legal representatives, namely, non- applicant Nos. 1-A to 1-E were brought on record by way of substitution. After the substitution an application for amendment was filed by the legal representatives wherein it was stated that after the death of the original plaintiff there was an oral partition amongst the plaintiff in respect of the property and the accommodation in question had fallen to the share of Neelkanth Gamne (the non-applicant No. 1-D herein ). It was further stated in the application that the said Neelkanth Gamne had been carrying on a 'kirana' business at Raipur in a rented accommodation and he was being pressurised by the landlord to vacate the premises and hence, the suit accommodation was required bona fide for him to commence the business. The prayer for amendment was objected to by the tenant-petitioner but the learned Trial Judge allowed the application for amendment. The said order allowing the amendment was assailed in Civil Revision No. 1469/98 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court came to hold that there had been no application of mind in allowing the amendment and accordingly it deserved to be set aside. Being of this view he set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and directed to rehear the parties on the said application and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. After the matter was remanded the learned Trial Judge heard the parties and by the impugned order allowed the amendment application. The learned Judge opined, in view of the changed circumstances, the proposed amendment was necessary. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionist.