PREM TENT HOUSE Vs. PARKASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated February 10, 1983, affirming the judgment and decree of Civil Judge City, Jaipur, dated July 5, 1982 in a suit for eviction.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity, default in payment of rent and material alterations. Both the lower Courts have passed a decree for eviction holding the question of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. During the pendency of first appeal before learned District Judge, the defendant-appellant had submitted an application for amendment in the written statement. The said application was dismissed by learned District Judge by order, dated November 20, 1982. The defendant filed a revision petition in this Court against the order, dated November 20, 1982. The said revision petition was dismissed by Hon'ble Sidhu, J. on merits on January 6, 1983. The defendant has alleged in the grounds of second appeal that he had submitted petition for special leave before January 6, 1983. Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition but reserved the liberty to the defendant to argue the question as regards the legality or propriety of the order passed by the District Judge dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement in any proceedings which may be brought to Hon'ble Supreme Court against the final order passed by the High Court. Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the defendant-appellant frankly conceded that so far as this Court was concerned the order, dated January 6, 1983 dismissing the revision petition against the order of the District Judge dated November 20, 1982, had become final and the defendant-appellant was not entitled to raise any ground in the second appeal regarding the proprity of the order passed by the District Judge, dated November 20, 1982.

(3.) ON the other hand it was argued by Mr. Rastogi that parties were fully, alive to this question and the plaintiff had clearly mentioned in the plaint that whole of the suit premises were requested by the plaintiff-respondent. He had given detailed description of his need for whole of the premises. The plaintiff had also led evidence and submitted a site-plan for proving his need for the entire premises. The defendant had cross-examined the plaintiff on this aspect of the matter and when there was sufficient material on record there does not arise any question of remanding the case. It was also argued by Mr. Rastogi that this point was argued in detail before the first appellate Court also and the learned District Judge had clearly held that the entire suit premises were required by the plaintiff-respondent for his office and residence on this account it could not be said that the parties were not given any opportunity or were not heard on this point.