SAROJ THAREJA Vs. TARABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A fervent appeal is made by petitioners' counsel for deferring hearing and decision in this matter. However, I see no reason to oblige counsel to make his client happy only abdicating my judicial duties and shutting my eyes to the background facts of the case.

(2.) BETWEEN 15-4-1987 and this date, this matter came up before me on many occasions and hearing was deferred on the prayer of counsel that parties may be able to settle matter amicably. Indeed, on the last date, namely, 3-7-1987, non-applicant No. 1 was not present, but the applicant No. 1 was present and on that ground only, the matter was adjourned till today with the hope that when both sides are present, they would file joint petition recording the compromise, as it was submitted to this Court on 15-4-1987. Today, both parties are present - applicant No. 1 and also non-applicant No. 1. Yet, they failed to reach a compromise and settlement and the fact is also that this application under Section 23-E of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, for short, the 'act', is pending decision in this Court for 1 1/2 years. _

(3.) SHRI R. D. Jain, who appears for the non-applicants, strongly urged that the instant case is fully covered by decision of this Court rendered by me on 5-9-1986 in Civil revision No. 72 of 1986 (Ghanshyamdas Gupta vs. Shivaldas ). Shri Chaturvedi, who appears for the applicants, on the other hand, contests his position and has tried to distinguish the decision. Councel has also pressed in service a reported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushiladevi vs. Kedarnath Gupta, 1987 MPRCJ 193. The only fact which has to be stated in this connection is that decision in Sushiladevi (supra) was rendered on 17-9-1986 after the decision in Ghanshyamdas gupta's case (supra), but in that case, the attention of his Lordship was not drawn to the decision in Ghanshyamdas Gupta's case (supra) which, of course, had remained unreported till now.