UNIVERSAL TRANSPORT Vs. SAROJ KAPOOR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1995 passed by Seventh Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.35-A/1994 decreeing the suit of plaintiffsrespondents of eviction on the ground envisaged under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 this appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 96 of the CPC.

(2.) During pendency of this appeal two applications have been filed by the appellant; I.A. No.8772/2010 is an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written-statement and I.A. No.9136/2009 is for taking the subsequent events on record i.e. under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. One more application, I.A. No. 12629/2010 has been filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead Smt. Rekha Kapoor w/o Shri Raj Kumar Kapoor as party to the appeal because according to the appellantdefendant a partition has taken place in the family of the plaintiffs-respondents and the suit property fell in the share of Smt. Rekha Kapoor.

(3.) The contention of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant is that after partition has taken place in the family and after the property in dispute had fallen in the share of Smt. Rekha Kapoor a fresh agreement of tenancy has been executed between her and the appellant and therefore, on account of subsequent event the cause of action now does not survive and therefore, the suit be dismissed.