RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. LAXMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court by which the suit of plaintiff/respondent under Section 12 (1) (a) and Section 12 (1) (f) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') has been decreed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but on filing appeal by the respondent it has been decreed.

(2.) BEFORE considering the case of appellant it will be appropriate to state one material fact that during the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff/respondent Bhagwandas has died on 18-1-2006. The appellant filed an application for substitution of legal heirs which has been allowed and wife of late Bhagwandas has been substituted in this appeal. The appellant has also filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking amendment that during the pendency of the second appeal, sole plaintiff has died on 18-1-2006. The need as set upto by the plaintiff and pleaded in the plaint has come to an end and appellant cannot be evicted from the suit shop under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. As this appeal has not been admitted yet, the aforesaid application cannot be considered at pre-admission stage. However, this fact may be taken into consideration at the time of admission of the appeal and accordingly it is taken into consideration.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent under Section 12 (1) (a) and Section 12 (1) (f) of the Act. Though the suit was filed on the ground of arrears of rent but there was dispute in respect of amount of rent and a dispute under Section 13 (2) of the Act was raised by the appellant. The Trial Court vide order dated 6-1-1998 allowed one month's time to the appellant to deposit the rent and thereafter on 19-3-1998 again allowed a week's time to deposit the rent to the appellant. The appellant deposited the entire rent on 20-3-1998 and there was in fact no default on the part of the appellant, and on compliance of Section 13 (1) of the Act the decree under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act could not have been passed against the appellant. So far as the decree under Section 12 (1) (f) is concerned the plaintiff failed to establish his need. He was having a shop adjoining to the disputed shop which was vacant for the alleged need of plaintiff. The said house was sold by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit so the need was not bonafide and the Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit of the respondent. For starting the business of selling whole sale fruits, the need has come to an end after the death of the plaintiff/respondent. It is submitted that this appeal be admitted/allowed and the plaintiff suit may be dismissed.