LAWS(MPH)-1979-1-21

BHIMANDAS Vs. NAGIBAI

Decided On January 27, 1979
Bhimandas Appellant
V/S
Nagibai Respondents

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 plaintiff's bona fide 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 JLJ 772=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. Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders AIR 1975 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 (supra), the appellant -tenant had also pressed an application for amendment of the written statement which was rejected by the Court below. From the report of Taramal's Case it is not clear as to what amendment was sought by the appellant -tenant. This prayer for amendment was rejected with the following observations: -