BHIMANDAS BEDAS SINGH Vs. NAGIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-non applicants filed a suit for ejectment etc. against the applicant defendant tenant. The suit for ejectment was based on the plaintiffs bonafiae requirement of the suit accommodation for their residence. The suit for ejectment was decreed by the trial Court on 31-10-1974. Against that judgment and decree the applicant-defendant filed an appeal, being First Appeal No. 79-A of 1974, which is pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal. In that appeal the applicant defendant filed two applications for amendment of the written statement. By these proposed amendments the defendant wanted to allege that the plaintiffs have obtained possession of accommodations, one as a result of a decree dated 30-7-1975, passed in another civil suit and the other because of having fallen vacant. These amendment applications were rejected by the Additional District Judge. One of the reasons for rejecting these applications was that the defendant cannot rely on the events subsequent to the passing of the decree. In support of these reasonings, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Taramal v. Laxman, 1971 MPLJ 888. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant filed the revision.

(2.) When the revision was heard by learned Single Judge of this Court, the correctness of the decision in Taramal's case was challenged in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in P. Venkataswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, 1975 AIR(SC) 1409, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the ruling in Taramal's case required reconsideration. The following question was, therefore, referred to a Division Bench:

(3.) In Taramal's case a suit for ejectment was filed for locating a lawyer's office for Ku. Parmeshwari Surey who was a member of the family of the landlord and was a practising advocate. In the appeal the findings that the plaintiff's requirement was a genuine one and there was no suitable place in the residential house of the landlord for locating that office were not challenged. The main question urged in that appeal was whether the word 'business' in section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') includes the practice of a profession. It was, however, held that the practice of a profession will also be included within the meaning of the word business' as used in the aforesaid sub-section of the Act.