ASHOK KUMAR DUREJA Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on IA No. 4343/2017 an application for considering IA No. 1118/17. This application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC has been filed on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction of appellant from the suit premises under the provisions of Section 12(1)(c) and 12 (1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") stating that during the pendency of the suit subsequent events took place. The appeal is in continuation of the suit and therefore, as established principle of law, the appellant prays that IA No. 1118/17 be decided first.

(2.) By filing IA No. 1118/17 under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC the appellant/defendant has contended that the learned trial Court decreed the suit for eviction under Section 12 (1)(c) and 12(1)(f) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, he preferred an appeal which is partly allowed by the learned lower appellate Court and held that the plaintiff/respondent failed to make out the case for eviction under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Act. The grounds under Section 12 (1)(f) of the Act stand proved, hence decreed the suit.

(3.) The proposed amendments are that during the pendency of the second appeal, the respondent/plaintiff obtained possession of another shop No. 5 from M/s Vijay Steel and has also made substantial construction over 1620 sq. ft. adjacent to M/s Raj Photoengravers (as shown in the plaint map). The plaintiff/respondent has concealed the availability of the alternative suitable accommodation. The conduct of the plaintiff/respondent clearly shows that he has not having bona fide requirement of the suit premises. Hence, opportunity is required to be given to the defendant/appellant to adduce additional evidence in support of this pleading.