P.B. Gajendra Gadkar, C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal by special leaves raises a short question about the correctness or propriety of the finding made by the High Court of Madhya Pradash in second appeal in respect of the claim made by Appellant Deity Shri Radhakrishan, Jawahar Ganj, that it was entitled to evict the Respondent the shop of Ramlal Brijlal on the ground that the premises lot out needed to the repaired and the said repairs could not be carried out without evicting the Respondent, the litigation from which this appeal arises had had a somewhat protracted career . The Appellant first applied to the Rent Controller under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 for permission to give notice to the Respondent for determining the lease in its favor. The Respondent has been a tenant under the Appellant in respect of a portion of the building bearing municipal number 761 in Lord Ganj, Jabalpur. The application made by the Appellant for permission to serve notice on the Respondent was allowed by the Rent Controller after he examined the merits of the contentions raised before him. The Respondent then preferred an appeal against the Rent Controller's order before the Deputy Commissioner, this appeal was dismissed. The Appellant then served a notice on the Respondent on April 6, 1956, calling upon him to vacate the premises by April 30, 1956. Since the Respondent did not comely with this notice the present suit was filed by the Appellant before the Civil Judge, Second Class, Jabalpur. In this suit it claimed a decree for ejectment and a money decree for Rs. 105/ - which was the amount of rent fallen in arrears. The Respondent resisted this claim on several grounds. It was urged that the suit was not properly framed, that the notice was invalid and some other pleas also were taken. The trial Judge held that the Appellant was not entitled to get a decree for ejectment against the Respondent and so that part of the suit was rejected. The trial Court found that the Respondent was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 105/ but in view of the fact that the suit as it was framed was, according to the trial Court incompetent, a decree for Rs. 105/ - was also net passed in favor of the Appellant.
(2.) THE Appellant challenged this decree by preferring an appeal the Appellant succeeded with the result that a decree was passed directing the Respondent to deliver to the Appellant vacant possession of the suit premises within a month from the date of the decree and to pay the Appellant Rs 105/ - by way of arrears of rent. The Respondent then went in second appeal before the High Court. Meanwhile Ace 23 of 1955 (The Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 23 of 1955) had been extended to the area and the High Court took the view that Section 17 of the Act applied to the present proceedings. The lower appellate Court, while it passed a decree in favor of the Appellant had taken a contrary view. Having held that the suit had to be tried in the light of the material provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Act 23 of 1955 the High Court delivered an interlocutory judgment and remanded the case to the trial Court. By interlocutor judgment parties were allowed to put in additional pleas, and the trial judge was required to permit the parties to lead evidence in support of the additional please and make his finding on the issues arising from them.
(3.) WHEN the matter was thus remanded to the trial Court the Appellant amended its plaint by the amendment the Appellant made a claim for evicting the Respondent under Section 4(1) and 4(m) of the Act. In support of its claim under Section 4(m) the Appellant alleged that the entire house including the block occupied by the Respondent was too old and in a dilapidated condition. The Appellant further alleged that it required major repairs which could not be done without evicting the tenants. Incidentally the plaint recited the fact that the other tenant, viz., Agarwal Hosiery Shop which occupied the adjoining block had already been ordered by the Civil Court in a suit between the Appellant and the said tenant to vacate that block. In regard to its claim under Section 4 (1) the Appellant pleaded that the Respondent had recently built a new palatial building in the same locality but instead of keeping it for himself he had let it out to another tenant at an exorbitant rent. The allegations thus made by the Appellant by its amended pleading were denied by the Respondent. It was alleged on his behalf that the suit house was not in a dilapidated condition and he called upon the Appellant to specify the particular repairs which the Appellant wanted to make. The pleas made under Section 4 (1) was also disputed.;