PREM CHAND Vs. PEER BAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal merits remand and that short order, I must pass today because the error of law manifested on the face of the impugned judgment is palpable.

(2.) THE appeal arises out of an eviction suit in which decree is passed by two Courts below on the ground of bona fide requirement contemplated under clause (f) of section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. At the appellate stage, the tenant, appellant before me and also in the Court below, filed two interlocutory applications. In I.A. Nos. II and III, he pleaded subsequent event and challenged the entitlement of the plaintiff/respondent for the decree prayed and granted, to be maintained by the lower appellate Court. He contended that during the course of the pendency of the /is, the need of the plaintiff/respondent had been satisfied in the manner stated. Hashmat Rai's leading case (1981 JLJ 716) was cited and of that notice was taken. But, benefit of that was refused by the lower appellate Court in a very peculiar manner.

(3.) FOR the short reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and also the decree passed by the Court below are set aside. A fresh decision shall he rendered after following due procedure of law as herein contemplated. Because there is no proper disposal of I.A. Nos. II and III, there is no proper hearing of the appeal and no proper disposal of the appeal.