AFSAR ARA Vs. IQBAL SHARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree dated 27 -2 -2007, passed in regular Civil Appeal No. 258 -A/2006 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Bhopal (Fast Track), in the appeal filed by the defendant/respondent No. 1, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27 -7 -2006 passed in regular Civil Suit No. 44 -A/2005 of the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge Class -I, Bhopal. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: - -

(2.) WHETHER the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court reversing the findings of the trial Court decreeing the suit against the respondents on the grounds enumerated under section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, is perverse and contrary to law -

(3.) IT is, vehemently, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since a composite suit was filed by the appellant before the Civil Court in other grounds also mentioned in section 12(1) of the Act, such a suit was maintainable. There is no bar created under the law that such a composite suit cannot be filed before the Court. It is further contended that in fact if a decree could not be granted under the provisions of section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Act in a composite Civil Suit, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not specifically barred under section 45 of the Act and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in this respect are perverse and are liable to be set aside. It is contended that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sulochana v. Rajinder Singh, : 2009(1) JLJ 244, the bar under section 45 of the Act could not come into play and the decree granted by the Court below was not to be set aside.