- (1.)The appellant is the tenant of the premises - 1st Floor, 46 M.L.B. Colony, Gwalior (M.P.) (for short 'the accommodation') which was initially owned by one Sushil Kumar who sold it to the respondent. Thus, the appellant became the tenant of the respondent. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent being Case No. 453A of 1996 in the Court of 9th Civil Judge, II Class, Gwalior, seeking injunction against the respondent. In the said suit the respondent filed a counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. claimaing eviction of the appellant, inter alia, under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act'). The appellant contested the counter claim filed by the respondent and pleaded that it was not maintainable. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues and on considering the evidence adduced by the parties held that the counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C.P.C. was maintainable and that the respondent required the suit premises bona fide. Accordingly, it decreed the counter claim of the respondent and dismissed the suit for the relief of injunction filed by the appellant by judgment dated January 31, 1998. In regard to the decree of eviction passed on the counter claim of the respondent, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Court of the 6th Additional District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.). The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on October 8, 1998. Against that judgment the unsuccessful appellant filed Second Appeal No. 621 of 1998 before the High Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated March 15, 1999 which is assailed in this appeal by special leave.
(2.)Mr. S. S. Khanduja, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that in view of the provisions of Chapter III-A the counter claim ought not to have been entertained by the Civil Court and that the respondent should have filed independent case in the Court of the Rent Controller so the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Mr. A. K. Chitale, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, has argued that Chapter III-A which was inserted in the Act in 1983, was later amended and confined to specified landlord, defined in Section 23-J thereunder, and as such the Civil Court rightly entertained the counter claim with regard to eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need for occupation as residence.
(3.)We may observe that maintainability of counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6 of C. P. C. is not canvassed before us. The discussion centered round the jurisdiction of Civil Court to pass decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement in the face of Section 23-A of the Act.