UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE Shri Neema contended that there was no proper notice under section 80 C.P.C. by plaintiff No.4 Ghanshyam before institution of the suit and there was notice only from plaintiff 1, 2 and 3 Chaturbhuj, Sitabai arid Radhakishan the co -owners of the suit - accommodation, Shri Garg contended that the point was not urged in the Courts blow. Shri Neema controverting the submission urged that the point being one of law could be urged at any stage. There is no force in the contention of Shri Neema. The point having not been urged in the two Courts below can be said to have been waived. Even otherwise a co -owner can maintain a suit for eviction and on the same analogy a suit filed on the strength of notice under section 80 C.P.C. served by three co - owners of the suit accommodation could not be thrown away on the ground of non -compliance of S.80 C.P.C. as aforesaid. Shri Neema's contention on the point is rejected.

(2.) ON the next contention as to election not having been given to defendants under section 18 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is observed that the suit by the plaintiffs was, inter alia, decreed on ground of bona fide requirement also. Having regard to this, no infirmity can be found with the judgment and decree on the ground of election not having been given to the defendants as required under section 18 of the Accommodation Control Act 1961, even though decree may have also been on the ground of re -construction of the accommodation. This contention of Shri Neema is also rejected. Appeal dismissed.