KAILASH NARAYAN SHUKLA Vs. DINESHCHANDRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a concurrent finding of the two Courts below that the plaintiffs-respondents were successful in establishing that they required the suit accommodation bonafide for themselves and the members of their family and that they were entitled to evict the defendant from the said accommodation on the ground specified in Clause (e) of Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. In the opinion of this Court, the said finding is proper and reasonable. It is a pure finding of fact and does not call for interference in a second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff No. 1 was the mother of plaintiff No. 2. The defendants had admitted in their written statement that the two plaintiffs were the owners and landlords of the suit accommodation. It was at the stage of evidence that in view of some stray statements made by plaintiff No. 1 and the other part came from his father that the defendant came forward to make an application for amendment for incorporating the plea that the plaintiffs were only Benami purchasers of the suit house and were not owners of the same. This belated plea taken by the defendant was on the face of it an after thought and not bonafide. The application for amendment was, therefore, rightly rejected by the trial Court. The said aspect of the case also does not call for any interference in a second appeal.

(3.) There is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed summarily.