RAM CHANDRA SONI Vs. PRABHU DAYAL JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the tenant against the impugned order dated 25.2.93 passed by the first appellate Court remanding the case to the trial Court for trial of the suit on the amended pleadings of the plaintiff -landlord.

(2.) THE only fact necessary for deciding this appeal against the order of remand is that the plaintiff filed an eviction suit setting up a composite need for residence and for his business. During the pendency of the suit, since the adjoining tenanted portion was vacated, the need for residence was satisfied. The plaintiff -landlord continued with the suit for his need for business. The learned Judge of the trial Court, by its judgment dated 19.9.90 dismissed the suit by recording a finding that the accommodation in suit was purely residential and could not be got vacated for non -residential need.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the tenant contends before me that the remand on the basis of the subsequent events, pending appeal, was not at all justified. There was an attempt on the part of the landlord to change the vary foundation of the suit by setting -up the residential need instead of non -residential need originally pleaded by him in the suit. The learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, submitted that on the basis of the subsequent events, under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellate Court was competent to remand the matter.