KRISHNABAI BABULAL MISHRA Vs. LAXMIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by Bhave, J. in the following circumstances. The appellant brought a suit against the respondent for ejectment under Section 12 of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that the suit accommodation had become unsafe for human residence, unless extensive repairs were effected; that the suit accommodation was required for the use of some relations of the plaintiff; that the defendant had sublet the suit premises; and that the defendant had caused substantial damage to the premises let out. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed it holding that not one of those grounds was made out.

(2.) THE plaintiff appealed. At her instance, the first appellate Court struck out the respondent's defence under Section 13 (6) of the Act. However, the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal because she had not established any one of the grounds under Section 12 of the Act. The plaintiff then preferred this second appeal.

(3.) WHEN this second appeal was placed for hearing before a learned single Judge, learned counsel for the defendant urged that the lower appellate Court was in error in striking out the defence. This contention was rejected by the learned single Judge. Then the question which arose for his consideration was whether the burden of proving one of the grounds under Section 12 of the Act still remained on the plaintiff notwithstanding the defence having been struck out. A decision of another learned Judge, in Mst. Hajara Begum v. Guljar Khan, S. A. No. 940 of 1965. D/- 3-3-1969 (M. P.), was cited before the learned single Judge, where the learned Judge in the cited case, had observed as follows:-