( 1 ) THE appellant-defendant is admittedly a tenant in certain premises of which the respondent-plaintiff is the owner-landlord. Desirous of exercising his right of reversion and to secure possession from the appellant, the respondent instituted the action against the appellant for his eviction from the suit accommodation before the Rent Controlling Authority, Jabalpur on the ground that the premises are bona fide required by him for his occupation. As the law then stood, the action was required to be instituted by applicant under S. 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 before the Rent Controlling Authority. Special procedure was prescribed for dealing with such applications. The relevant part of that procedure is that the defendant-tenant in those proceedings was required to apply and obtain leave to defend within a specified period of 15 days of the service of the notice of the application upon him. It is only when such leave was granted, that the tenant was permitted to defend.

( 2 ) IN the instant case, as the appellant-tenant failed to avail of that opportunity within the prescribed time, he was denied permission to defend. The appellant approached the High Court against that order refusing him leave to defend but remained unsuccessful. Thereafter, the respondent- landlord examined himself as a witness on 22-1-85 and the case was closed for orders. Somehow, the orders could not be delivered because of the intervention of the High Court which stayed the passing of the final order in the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority.

( 3 ) AN important change was then introduced by an amendment of Sec. 23 of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This was by S. 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control (Amendment) Act, 1985. A new S. 23-J was introduced. The effect of this amendment is that the action before the Rent Controlling Authority for ejectment of the tenants on certain specific grounds alone could be filed by persons belonging to categories specified in S. 23-J. All those who did not belong to those categories, were required to avail of the remedy of a regular civil suit in a Civil Court. The amendment also made a provision for the pending cases. Section 9 of that Amendment Act, 1985 provides that the applications filed by the landlords other than those defined in S. 23-J, to evict the tenant, exclusively on the ground of bona fide requirement of accommodation under S. 23-E of the principal Act before 16/01/1985 and pending on such date before the Rent Controlling Authority shall stand transferred to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and such Court shall proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III as if it were a plaint.

( 4 ) SINCE the respondent's application before the Rent Controlling Authority squarely fell within the ambit of this provision, it stood transferred to the Civil Court.

( 5 ) WHEN the matter came to the Civil Court, notices to the parties were issued. Treating the application as a plaint in a civil suit, the respondent-plaintiff with permission of the Court paid the necessary court-fees as would have been levied on the application if it were initially filed as a plaint in the Civil Court. When this was done, the appellant made two applications. By one of such applications, he applied for permission to accept a written statement filed by him in that Court. By the other application he sought permission to cross-examine the respondent by recalling him as a witness. Both these applications were refused. The Civil Court, relying upon the statement made by the respondent before the Rent Controlling Authority, decreed the suit for eviction against the appellant. In appeal against the Decree before the District Judge, the appellant made an application under O. 41, R. 27, C. P. C. for filing some additional evidence in the shape of documents. The appeal and that application were both rejected. This is how this second appe