SANTOSH CHANEL BARMECHA Vs. PRATIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in this revision is that as to whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the ejectment proceedings initiated before the Rent Controlling Authority tinder Chapter III-A of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.

(2.) The facts, in short, leading to this revision are as follows : Pratima daughter of Balbir Singh brought an action against the applicant Santosh Chand Bermecha for evicting him from the suit accommodation on the ground of her bona fide need. The applicant is a disable lady (Viklang) and the accommodation in question situated in Ward No. 21, House No. 283, Sadar Bazar, Drug, is required for her bona fide need.

(3.) The applicant/tenant filed an appropriate application for leave to defend and the same was allowed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Thereafter the tenant filed his written-statement taking numerous pleas. However, he moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment in paras 11, 12 and 13 of the written-statement. This application was opposed by the non-applicant and the trial Court by its order dated 11-3-1987 dismissed the application holding that provisions of C.P.C. are not made applicable to the proceedings initiated under Chapter III-A of the M.P. Accommodation P Control Act. The trial Court also repelled the submission of the applicant for granting time for examining witness Balbir Singh ; hence this revision.