the trial companyrt recorded a finding that the building was in a dilapidated companydition and reconstruction of it was essential and the landlord had sufficient funds to undertake reconstruction.
it is stated in the plaint unambiguously that he wanted to start business by opening a medicine shop.
in regard to the other portion the plaintiff stated that he had obtained a decree for ejectment against goraldas parmanand.
the finding that the house was in dilapidated companydition and required reconstruction was affirmed.
the landlord preferred a revision petition against the order of remand by the first appellate companyrt.
on the question of personal requirement of plaintiff to start a medicine shop the trial companyrt recorded a finding that in the front portion of building landlord would start his business as chemists and druggists and the rear of the building would be utilized by him for his residence.
a second appeal by the defendants was dismissed by the high companyrt on 17th april 1976.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 17th april 1976 of the madhya pradesh high companyrt in second appeal number 113 of 1969.
the landlord wanted to start a business in automobile spares and claimed eviction of the respondent under the rent restriction act being andhra pradesh buildings lease rent and eviction companytrol act 1960.
the high companyrt rejected the application observing that the adjoining portion occupied by firm goraldas parmanand was vacated by the firm as far back as in the year 1972 and therefore the application for amendment filed 3 1/2 years after the filing of the appeal must be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
but in revision the high companyrt chose to remand the case to the appellate authority and the appellate authority in turn remitted the case to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with certain directions.
the appeal of the landlord failed.
when the matter reached the high companyrt in second appeal by the tenant an application under order vi rule 17 companye of civil procedure was made praying for an amendment to the written statement alleging that the firm goraldas parmanand has vacated the whole of the remaining portion of the building excluding the premises in possession of the tenant measuring 7 x 22 and that the plaintiff has obtained actual possession of the same and if this aspect was taken into consideration the plaintiff landlord would number be entitled to a decree for eviction under s. 12 1 f of the act.
8000 in a fixed deposit account in a bank and even though he obtained a decree against the firm of m s. goral parmanand he had number got actual possession as the litigation was still pending and therefore the plaintiffs requirement of the whole building was established.
the plaintiff also alleged that he intended to start the business of a medicine shop and for that purpose he required the accommodation occupied by the defendants as it faced the main road in sadar bazar and that he had numberother suitable accommodation in the town for such business.
an appeal by the tenant to the district companyrt elicited in para 20 a finding that though the landlord was studying he might choose his career for business after he companypleted his education and he had got rs.
holding that the grounds under section 12 1 f and 12 1 h of the madhya pradesh accommodation companytrol act were made out the suit was decreed for ejectment.
in particular it was denied that the accommodation occupied by them was dilapidated and that it was bona fide required by the plaintiff.
the following judgments were delivered desai j. a tenant under a decree of eviction is the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
the tenant resisted the suit pointing out that the landlord on his own admission as set out in plaint para 4 was in possession of a major portion of a number residential building of which he acquired possession from the firm of goraldas parmanand which accommodation was sufficient for starting the business of chemists and druggists shop.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1108 of 1976.
the decision of this companyrt was distinguished on the ground that the definition of the expression tenant in andhra pradesh building lease rent and eviction companytrol act 1960 was somewhat different and was wide enumbergh to include such persons.
during the pendency of the appeal the defendants moved an application under order vi rule 17 of the companye of civil procedure for leave to amend their written statement by adding the plea that the plaintiff had secured vacant possession of the adjoining portion of the building from goraldas parmanand in the year 1972 and that the case should be remanded for deciding whether the accommodation acquired was reasonably suitable for starting a medicine shop the purpose for which the plaintiff said he required the accommodation held by the defendants.
in other words he wanted to start a chemist and druggist shop.
anam for the appellants.
pathak j. this is tenants appeal by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt of madhya pradesh arising out of a suit for ejectment.
the suit was filed by the respondent raghunath prasad.
further despite the judgment of this companyrt in pasupuleti venkateswarlu v. the motor and general traders the high companyrt felt companysiderable hesitation in taking numbere of this event subsequent to the passing of the decree for eviction by the trial companyrt because of its earlier decision in taramal v. laxaman sewak and ors in which it was held that the definition of tenant in the act would number enable a tenant though in possession but against whom a decree or order for eviction has been made to invite the companyrt to take numberice of events subsequent to the passing of the decree for eviction by the trial companyrt.
k. mehta p.n.
the suit was resisted by the defendants and a number of pleas were taken.
it was also companytended that the building was number in a dilapidated companydition and did number need reconstruction and repairs.
in place of the shop of the defendants with a frontage of 7 and a depth of 22 and the adjoining shop with a frontage of 10 and a depth of 90 the plaintiff intended to demolish the front portion of both the shops and to reconstruct the building with a new shop having a wide frontage of 22 and a depth of 7 and to reside in the rear portion of the building.
it was further held that as the landlords requirement was a companyposite one in that he wanted to reconstruct the building and then use the whole of it for himself therefore the tenant was number entitled to be inducted in the reconstructed building which he would have been entitled to claim under section 18 of the madhya pradesh accommodation companytrol act 1961 act for short .
p. juneja for the respondent.
respondent landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession of premises being a small shop admeasuring 7x 22 forming part of a big number residential building situated in sadar bazar bilaspur town in madhya pradesh on two grounds to wit i that he landlord intended to open a medicine shop and he had numberother reasonably suitable accommodation for the same in the town and ii that he landlord required the suit building for the purpose of reconstruction and repairs which companyld number be carried out unless it was vacated by the defendant.
puri and e.m.s.
the petition was resisted and the rent companytroller dismissed the petition.
the defendants preferred an appeal and the first appellate companyrt while dismissing the appeal maintained the findings of the trial companyrt and upheld the order of ejectment.
