GOVIND PRASAD BANSAL Vs. GOPALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2006 passed by 2nd ADJ, Mhow in Civil Regular Appeal No. 55/2006 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29/7/2006 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class- 1, Mhow in Civil Suit No.251 -A/1995 whereby the suit filed by the appellant under Section 12 (1) (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (which shall be referred hereinafter as "Act") was decreed, was set aside, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2007 for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) MR. Vinay Zelawat, learned counsel for the respondents argued at length and submits that no illegality has been committed by learned appellate Court in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of plaint itself it is evident that the suit was filed on various grounds. While the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court itself on number of grounds except the ground u/s 12(1)(f) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that the suit was initially filed for the need of spouse which is not permissible under the law. The moment the appellant came to know about the mistake committed, as the suit cannot be decreed for the need of spouse, the amendment was incorporated. It is submitted that since the amendment was made after more than 10 years of pendency of the suit and also the need accrued to the appellant after his retirement, therefore, cause of action was not available to the appellant on the date of the suit which was filed on 29.3.1995. Learned counsel submits that for getting the decree u/s 12(1)(f) of the Act, bona fide need should be in existence from the date of filing of the suit till the decree is passed. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Hasamtrai Vs. Raghunathprasad (1981 JLJ 710) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the requirement must be at the time of the suit and must continue till the decree of the final Court. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Nandkishore Vs. Sarjudevi (1974 MPLJ 293) wherein this Court has held that need for business of landlord's spouse not covered by section 12(1)(f). It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal involves no substantial question of law hence the same be dismissed.