MANISHA LALWANI Vs. D V PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20-8-2013 by which the trial Court has partly rejected the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Order 16, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner filed the suit for eviction on the ground enumerated under section 12(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for grant of mesne profit. The respondent in the written statement denied the claim and in particular grounds enumerated under section 12(b) and (i) of the Act. The petitioner filed an application under Order 11, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was decided by the trial Court vide order dated 6-4-2014 by which the respondent was directed either to disclose the details of the accommodation acquired in Roshan Nagar, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Ward or file an affidavit. In response to the aforesaid order, the respondent filed the affidavit. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 to produce the record of the Municipal Corporation in respect of the aforesaid accommodation which was allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 16, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the petitioner wanted to examine the witnesses, namely, Income-tax Officer, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni, Smt. Shanta Paul and Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Katni. The respondent filed reply to the aforesaid application and opposed the prayer. The trial Court vide order dated 20-8-2013 partly allowed the application preferred by the petitioner and permitted issuance of summons to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Katni. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner has confined his challenge to the impugned order insofar as it rejects the prayer for summoning Smt. Shanta Paul and Branch Manager, Andhra Bank. It is further submitted that impugned order suffers from apparent error on the face of record inasmuch as the petitioner wanted to examine Smt. Shanta Paul in order to prove the grounds enumerated under sections 12(1)(b) and (i) of the Act. However, the trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that benami transaction is prohibited under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It is also submitted that similarly the trial Court committed grave illegality in rejecting the prayer for summoning the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank on the ground that the plaintiff can approach the Rent Controlling Authority under section 10 of the Act for fixation of standard rent. It ought to have appreciated that the petitioner has not claimed standard rent but mesne profit. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and others, 1983 AIR(SC) 925, Lalitha J. Rai v. Aithappa Rai, 1995 AIR(SC) 1984, Rehman Hussain v. Althaf Hussain, 2004 AIR(Kar) 172, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham and others, 1965 AIR(SC) 1008, Smt. Yasodamma and another v. Inderchand Vimalchand Jain and another, 1974 AIR(Kar) 100, Shyamacharan Raghubar Prasad Tiwari v. Sheojee Bhai Jairam Chattri and another, 1971 AIR(MP) 120, Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh and others, 2012 6 SCC 460, Achutananda Sahoo v. Dhruba Ch. Sahoo and others, 1987 AIR(Ori) 179, Jagdish Babu Raijaada v. Sanval Das Gupta, 2011 2 MPLJ 381 and V.K. Periasamy v. D. Rajan, 2001 AIR(Mad) 410