- (1.)This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 24.6.2015, whereby two applications of the petitioner/defendant filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and under Section 13(3) of M.P.Accommodation Control Act were rejected by court below.
(2.)Shri R.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application dated 9.12.2014 under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. It is contended that between plaintiffs and defendant, relation of landlord-tenant was never established. In addition, certain other issues are required to be framed. The court below has erroneously framed the issues about bonafide need of plaintiffs whereas there is no whisper about "bonafide need" in the plaint. In addition, it is contended that in another application (Annexure P/7), it is prayed that the plaintiffs cannot draw the rent from the Court, which was deposited by the defendant. The court below rejected both the applications. Shri Jain criticized the same and prayed for setting aside the said order.
(3.)Per Contra, Shri Anmol Khedkar, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order. By placing reliance on (Hiralal Kapur vs. Prabhu Choudhury, 1988 AIR(SC) 852) and (Pista Devi Goyal vs. Brij Mohan Garg, 2010 4 MPLJ 235 ), it is contended that substance of the matter needs to be seen. The court cannot entertain hyper technical objection. The sum and substance of plaint shows that the plaintiffs are in bonafide need of the accommodation. Whether or not, the word "bonafide" is used in the pleadings, the fact remains that such need can be seen from the pleadings. He submits that no interference is warranted.