OM PRAKASH PURANCHANDRA Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. A suit was filed Under Section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1%1. This suit was filed by Kastoori Devi. She has since died. An application was moved by Omprakash during the life time of Kastoori Devi. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that applicant had acquired the property on account of family partition. This application is said to have been allowed. After this application was allowed a further prayer was made. This was under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plea taken was that premises are required for bona fide need of Omprakash. This prayer has been rejected. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no error has been committed by the trial Court. According to him, if the original landlord dies then the question of deciding the plea of bona fide need of original landlord would not arise. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as Anand v. Gomti Bat, 1982 MPLJ SN. 25.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that a suit for getting the premises vacated Under Section 12 (1) (f) would be maintainable on the part of the Omprakash also. The counsel submits that in view of the decision of this Court, reported as Vidhya Devi v. Sat Prakash, 1981 MPRCJ 53, the prayer for amendment can be allowed. It was held as under :

(3.) IT would not be out of place to mention here that Special Leave Appeal in the above case was declined by the Supreme Court of India on 8th of May, 1996. The number of this Special Leave to appeal is 10666 of 1996.