HARISHANKAR Vs. SHRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON two grounds remand is made allowing two interlocutory applications. Defendant -appellants' prayer was allowed to amend the written statement and his other prayer for appointment of Commissioner for local inspection was also allowed.

(2.) WHAT is not disputed is that decree impugned in appeal was based under Clause (c) of section 12 (1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, for short, 'The Act'. Issue No.4 was framed by the trial Court to decide it as complained nuisance was created by the tenant -defendant, respondent in the Court of appeal. The pleadings in regard to that Issue I have read. The short complaint made by the plaintiff is that under the stair case there was little space which was used by the plaintiff -landlord for storage of cement, bricks etc. When the plaintiff removed or added to the articles stored the defendant -tenant obstructed him in doing so and that was cause of nuisance. That averment in the plaint the defendant denied.

(3.) IN so far as the other prayer allowing the Commissioner's appointment is concerned for that too there was no scope because whether the acts of the tenant -defendant (appellant in the Court below) tantamounted to nuisance in law would be relatable to the pleadings and evidence adduced in support of that pleading by the parties. There was nothing for the Commissioner to discover about the existence of the space under the stair -case or about any open space in the suit house in regard to the passage. In report of plea of nuisance it was never the case of the plaintiff -respondent that there was an obstruction caused by the defendant -tenant to the user of any passage in making the case of nuisance.