PYARE LAL AGRAWAL Vs. KAMALCHANDRA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's second appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It arises out of judgment and decree dated 04.5.1988 passed by the First Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 47-A/1986 arising out of judgment and decree dated 15.7.1986 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/1980 by the 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur. Against the said judgment and decree, initially this second appeal was filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur on 24.6.1988 and was admitted for hearing on 28.11.1988 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate Court erred in law in finding that the suit accommodation was required bona-fide by the plaintiff-respondent for starting his business of general provisions?

(2.) IT was heard by the M.P. High Court and ultimately by judgment dated 01.9.1997, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court was set aside and the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court regarding dismissal of the suit for eviction was restored. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the M.P. High Court, the landlord filed S.L.P. (C) No. 14232/1998 before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was heard as Civil Appeal No. 1724/2001. Hon'ble the Supreme Court allowed this appeal vide order dated 2.3.2001 and the judgment of the High Court dated 01.9.1997 passed in this appeal was set aside. The following is the operative part of the order passed by the Supreme Court: On perusal of the judgment of the High Court under challenge and on consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be sub served if the judgment under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the question and to dispose of the second appeal afresh. The High Court will consider whether any substantial question of law arises in the appeal and if satisfied formulate the question and dispose of the appeal on merits according to law.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court dated 01.9.1997 in Second Appeal No. 242 of 1988 is set aside. The appeal is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in the manner noted above. Since the suit was instituted in 1979 and the second appeal was filed in 1988, in our view, it is just and appropriate for the High Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Hence we request the High Court to do so, within six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this Order. Status quo regarding possession of the property as prevailing on date shall be maintained by the parties till the disposal of the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.