HARIRAM SONI Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - I have heard this appeal at some length and I was very anxious to decide the matter here and now, respondent's counsel having rightly submitted that the suit being instituted ten years ago, a remand at this stage may be detrimental to her interest. However, justice is evenly balanced and interest of both sides when taken into consideration, can make justice wholesome, and not in any other manner. I am satisfied that if the matter is not remanded, albeit taking care that it still disposed of expeditiously, the appellant is likely to suffer irreparably.

(2.) NOW , the reasons for the remand. Appellant's counsel Shri Lahoti has fairly confined his argument only to two points and as such, this appeal is being disposed of only on the points agitated. Accordingly, when the matter is heard in remand, the appeal shall be re-heard only on those two points and parties shall be debarred from agitating any other point. The first point is that a decree in terms of Section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'Act'/could be passed only on satisfaction of the legal requirements thereof. In other words, the respondent/landlord could get a decree for eviction of the appellant/tenant only on proof of satisfaction of conditions precedent envisaged thereunder. In accepting this contention, I have no hesitation because this view indeed has been taken by this Court in Shri Gopal Shastri's case, Second Appeal No. 147 of 1976, disposed of on 8.7.1986. It was held, inter alia, in that case that the demand notice for arrears of rent served on the tenant by the landlord in prescribed manner would only give cause of action for eviction of the tenant thereunder if the remand was not satisfied and the arrear-rent was not cleared. In the instant case, the relevant issue concerning cause of action under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act being defective, I am satisfied that there has not been a proper consideration of the legal requirement which has definitely indented the jurisdictional competence of two Courts below to pass the decree in this case. The trial Court framed issue No. 2 in following terms to decide the question.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the following additional issue is framed to decide appellant's objection that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to decree the suit in terms of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act :