GOPIKISHAN Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant on the question of admission.

(2.) The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-5-2012 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Khandwa, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26-A/2009, confirming and affirming the judgment and decree dated 31-03-2011, passed by the Second Civil Judge Class II, Khandwa, in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2009.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to record a proper finding as to whether the accommodation, in question, was required for the bona fide need of the respondent/Krishi Upaj Mandi, Khandwa, which is necessary for evicting a tenant under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the land, in question, has already been transferred from the respondent/Krishi Upaj Mandi to the concerned Municipal Corporation/Municipality and this fact was sought to be brought on record by the appellant by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 ofthe C.P.C. but the Courts below have committed gross illegality in rejecting the application for amendment as well as the application under Order XVI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for bringing relevant documents on record. It is submitted that the Courts below have also erred in recording a finding to the effect that the tenancy of the appellant was yearly and not monthly.