MUNSHI KHAN Vs. MAYADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal came up for hearing before R. C. Lahoti, J., who found an apparent conflict between the view taken in three decisions rendered by learned single Judges of this Court on the question mooted in the appeal. The matter, thereafter, came up before a Division Bench of which he was also a member. However, he found unable to persuade himself to agree with the Presiding Judge (S. K. Dubey, J.) and as a result of difference of opinion between them, the controversy is to be finally resolved by me.

(2.) This is defendant's second appeal. Two courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for his eviction on the "ground" contemplated under S. 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, 'Act'. The plaintiff's case was that she had purchased the suit premises on 18-9-1972 from one Noor Beg but she did not get vacant possession as the defendant was occupying the same as Noor Beg's tenant. After her purchase for defendant's eviction, she instituted the suit on 25-6-1973 basing her claim on Cls. (e) and (o) of S. 12(1). During the trial of the suit, on 10-4-1980, para 6A was inserted in the plaint to add further the "ground" contemplated under Cl. (e) of S. 12(1). The short question surfaced for decision in this Reference is the effect of the said amendment on defendant's rights and interests in the suit premises and on the validity of the decree passed accepting plaintiff's claim for his eviction on the "ground" incorporated by that amendment.

(3.) The view expressed by S. K. Dubey, J., is that amendment necessarily would relate back to the date of institution of the suit and plaintiff's entitlement would, therefore, be hit by Sub-Sec. (4) of S. 12 because one year's period had not elapsed between her purchase of the suit premises and institution of the suit. According to him, the decision in M/s. Bhanwarilal Trilokchand v. Bannatwala Jain and Co., 1980 MPRCJ (Note) 87 did not lay down the law correctly and that the decisions to the contrary, Chandabai v. Phulchand, 1966 MPLJ 1080, Hari Singh v. Madanlal, 1974 MPRCJ 65, Deenanath v. Kishore Kumar, 1981 (1) MPWN 110 and E. V. Subba Rao v. Udakchand, 1982 MPRCJ (Note) 36 stated the law correctly. Taking the opposite view, R. C. Lahoti, J., has observed that S. 12(4) is to be subjected to norms of purposive interpretation and excluded from operation of the doctrine of "relation back". According to him, Bhanwarilal Trilokchand (supra) has laid down the law correctly and the contrary view expressed in the other decisions is incorrect. In their orders, the learned Judges have referred to a large mass of case-law to support their respective views to which, I shall have occasion to refer briefly in due course.