GANESHRAM Vs. LAXMIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts for the purposes of disposal of this appeal be noticed as under :

(2.) AFTER the matter was remanded, the evidence was recorded. The trial Court decreed the suit. It was held that the suit premises that is the shop is bona fide required by the landlord for the need of his son. It was further opined that the shop in question is suitable for the business. The trial Court passed this judgment on 3rd of March, 1992. Against the judgment and decree so passed, a first appeal was preferred. This came to be registered as civil appeal No. 7-A of 1992. During the pendency of the appeal, Laxmandas son of the plaintiff met with a fatal accident. Thereafter, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was pleaded that that the business which was to be carried on by Laxmandas now would be carried on by the wife of Laxmandas, that is, Smt. Girja Sharma. Laxmandas had left behind his wife, three daughters and a son. It was sought to be pleaded that the premises is now required for the need of the family of Laxmandas. It was, accordingly, urged that the accommodation is required for them and the decree passed by the trial Court should enure for the benefit of his heirs also. The Court which was dealing with the appeal remanded the matter to the lower Court. The question as to whether the amendment should be allowed or not was, thus, left for the decision of the trial Court. The trial Court allowed the amendment application and returned the file to the appellate Court for disposal of the appeal. When this happened, the respondent filed an application. He wanted to amend the written statement. The appellate Court has allowed this application of the tenant, that is, the appellant in the appellate Court. The case has been remanded for fresh trial. It is against this judgment and decree passed on 12th of December, 1995, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE above is one side of the picture. The other side of the picture is that a miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the heirs of the tenant also. This appeal bears No. 408 of 1995. The argument raised in this appeal is that as the person for whose need the suit was filed has died, therefore the suit should have been dismissed. The argument raised is that the Act envisages the need of the major son and unmarried daughters and the daughter-in-law is not covered by the provisions of Section 12(1)(f) of the Act. It is, accordingly, argued that the order of remand is bad and the appellate Court should have dismissed the appeal.