SINGHAL TENT HOUSE RATLAM THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHRI INDRAMAN S/O DURGAPRASADJI SINGHAL Vs. SMT. UMADEVI W/O SHRI NAVALKISHORJI RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 09/02/07 passed by II ADJ, Ratlam in Civil Appeal No.44 -A/06, whereby judgment dated 21/10/06 passed by III Civil Judge, Class -I, Ratlam in Civil Suit No.77 -A/04 whereby suit filed by the respondent was dismissed, was reversed and decree of eviction was passed under Section 12(1)(e)(f)&(i) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on 09/09/91 alleging that the respondent is owner of a house bearing Municipal house No.92, ward No.15 situated at Station Road, Ratlam, which has been purchased by the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 22/06/89 from one Sanjay Dave. It was alleged that the appellant is in occupation of the suit house as tenant @ Rs.300/ - per month. It was alleged that after purchasing the property appellant has become tenant of the respondent. It was alleged that the tenancy of the appellant is for composite purpose such as residential and non -residential. It was alleged that the appellant is carrying on his business in the name and style M/s Singhal Decorators on the front part of the suit accommodation and is residing in the rear part. It was alleged that the respondent requires the suit accommodation for carrying on her business and also for residence. It was alleged that the respondent is carrying on her business in the name and style M/s Rathi Agro Agency, Ratlam. It was alleged that the respondent is having no other alternative suitable accommodation to fulfill her requirement. It was alleged that the respondent is residing at 67 -Shastri Nagar, Ratlam alongwith her family which belongs to Badrinarayan Rathi who happens to be her father -in -law. It was alleged that previously the family of the respondent and father -in -law were joint, but at the time of filing of the suit respondent is residing in the house of Badrinarayan separately. It was alleged that from this house only the respondent is carrying on her business. It was further alleged that appellant has purchased a house at Telephone Nagar from where appellant is residing and carrying on her business. It was alleged that the suit filed by the respondent be decreed and the appellant be directed to vacate the suit accommodation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that during pendency of the appeal an amendment application was filed by the appellant, wherein subsequent event such as the death of mother -in -law and father -in -law of the respondent was pleaded and it was also alleged that the alleged need has come to an end as at the time of filing of the suit respondent was residing in the house of her father -in -law, who is no more. It is submitted that the amendment application filed by the appellant was allowed, but inspite of that appellant was given no opportunity to prove the facts stated in the proposed amendment, which are based on subsequent events. It is submitted that since no opportunity to adduce the evidence was given to the appellant, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be allowed to sustain. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Appellate Court to re -decide the appeal after recording of evidence.