BANGALIMAL GUPTA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Anand V. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant.

(2.) It is submitted that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for eviction of property in question on various grounds under Ss. 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. A written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and he has denied the plaint allegations that the plaintiff is having another vacant shop in Bhandil Market in Morena and also took some special pleas in the written statement. That issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC was filed by the plaintiff but the cross-examination has not been started yet. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC on the ground that shop No. 3 shown in the map attached with the plaintiff was vacated by the tenant Ramsewak and is in possession of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the bona fide requirement as shown is fulfilled by vacation of the aforesaid shop in question. As the aforesaid is the subsequent development after filing of the Suit therefore, the same was sought to be incorporated by way of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is pleaded in the application that the plaintiff has recently obtained the vacant possession of the shop No. 3 from the tenant Ramsewak. The aforesaid amendment was necessary for the just and proper disposal of the case, therefore, the same was prayed to be incorporated.

(3.) The reply to the application was filed denying the contents of the application stating that the same is being filed just applying the delay tactics. The affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC has already been filed in the matter. It is further pointed out that the dimensions of the shop in question which has been vacated and the present shop which is in possession of the defendant/petitioner are of different sizes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bona fide requirement is fulfilled. The plaintiff has not given any exact date on which the possession of the vacant shop has been taken place by the plaintiff and he has prayed for dismissal of the application. He has further supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court stating that the defendant has not pointed out the exact date on which the vacant possession of the shop in question has been handed over to the plaintiff. It is further argued that the petition is under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction and limited scope of interference. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.