KUNJ BIHARI LAL Vs. PREM NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court by which the lower appellate Court modified the decree of the trial Court and has granted eviction under section 12(l)(h) of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and has reversed the decree under section 12(1)(e) of the Act. It is pertinent to mention here that decree under section 12(l)(h) of the Act was challenged by respondent before this Court in second Appeal No. 547/1989 and by order dated 28.3.1990 the decree under section 12(l)(h) of the Act was confirmed by this Court by granting time to the respondent to 'vacate the accommodation and the appellant was permitted to reconstruct the accommodation as per impugned judgment and decree. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree reversed by the lower appellate Court under section 12(i)(e) of the Act. The appellate Court by the impugned order has reversed the decree merely on the ground that one Vijay Singh Chauhan was an important witness for respondent but the trial Court has not recorded his statement which was mandatory to negative the bona fide necessity of plaintiff. On this ground, the decree under section 12(l)(e) of the Act was reversed.

(2.) THIS appeal was admitted on 21.11.1990 on following substantial question of law :

(3.) THE contention of the defendant was that Vijay Singh Chauhan was the tenant of plaintiff. He vacated three room adjoining to the present accommodation occupied by the plaintiff in January 1985. By this plaintiff has got more accommodation for his residence. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellate Court erred in reversing the finding in respect of bona fide necessity merely on the ground that Vijay Singh Chauhan though was present was not examined by the Trial Court. The defendant sought several adjournments in the case, but has not examined Vijay Singh Chouhan and after closure of the evidence by both the parties, on the date of the final argument, he was produced in the case.