SANT RAM Vs. ONKAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff-landlord against the disissal of his suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant from the suit premises.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant is the landlord of the suit premises, viz block no. 2 of house no 122 in Bajrang ward, Kandeli Narsingpur, and the defendant respondent is his monthly tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/. On 7-4-1959 the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant as from 304-1959 by serving on him a notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which notice the defendant received on 8-4-1959. As the defendant-tenant did not vacate the suit premises in spite of the determination of his tenancy by the aforesaid notice, the determination of his tenancy by the aforesaid notice, the plaintiff-landlord on 5-5-1959 filed the instant suit for his ejectment. He alleged that the suit premises were exempted from the operation of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 as they were constructed in March 1952, i.e. after 26-1-1951, and as for the Transfer of Property Act the tenancy of the defendant had been validly terminated by a notice to quit dated 7-4-1959. It was further alleged that even if the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation control Act applied, the plaintiff had a right to eject the defendant because he was in arrears of rent and had not cleared the arrears within one month of the service on him of a notice of demand. The defence inter alia, that the suit house was not constructed in March 1952 so that it was governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, and under that Act the suit was premature as it was filed before the expiry of one month from the service on him of the notice of demand.

(3.) The Trial court decreed the suit for arrears of rent but dismissed the suit for ejectment. The plaintiff-landlord appealed and also filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence under Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to lead additional evidence In support of his plea that the house had been constructed prior to March 1952. Considering the case of the plaintiff in the light of the additional evidence led by him, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal holding, inter alia, that the suit horse had been constructed after 26-1-1951 and as such was exempted from the operation of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955. On appeal the High Court by its judgment dated 24-10-1964 set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge and remanded the case to him for re-hearing the appeal with a direction to consider the application of the plaintiff for additional evidence under Rule 27 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the hearing of the appeal and to allow it if the case fell strictly within the provisions of that rule.