GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG CO LTD Vs. TEJNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff a registered Company, against the judgment and decree dt. 30-4-85 passed by the learned District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/83, arising out of the judgment and decree dt. 19-9-83 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class 1, Khachrod in C. C. No. 85-A/82.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows - The respondent was an employee of the appellant-plaintiff-company and was required to serve in the plaintiff's guest-house. He was provided with a quarter for his residence, as a term of his employment and was exempted from payment of rent because of his employment in connection with the guest-house as an attendant therein. The services of the respondent were terminated w.e.f. 4-12-1979 and he was given a notice to vacate the quarter which is the suit accommodation. The notice sought to terminate his tenancy w.e.f. 30-12-1980. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises, the appellant company filed this suit on the ground inter alia that it required the quarter in suit bona fide for the use of its employees and that the respondent was liable to be evicted under S.20 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as we Act') as well as under S.12(1)(j) of the Act, as a result of termination of his services. The trial Court after, trial of the suit, passed a decree for eviction against the respondent-defendant and awarded rent @ Rs. 5/- p.m. from the date of termination of the defendant's services till delivery of possession of the suit-quarter.

(3.) On an appeal having been filed by the respondent the learned lower Appellate court found it necessary to remand the case for a finding by the trial Court on the question whether the dispute raised by the defendant regarding validity of termination of his services was pending before the Labour Court and if so, to consider the effect of such pendency Accordingly, the learned Lower. Appellate Court by order dt. 25-1-85 remanded the case to the trial Court apparently under O.41, R.25 of the Code of Civil Procedure.