1. The tenants have filed this second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1993 rendered by Sixth Additional District Judge, Ujjairi, in Civil Regular Appeal No. 207A/88, thereby sustaining the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984 passed by First Civil Judge; Class-I, Ujjain, in C.O.S. No. 120-A/83.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed the suit for eviction. The accommodation was let at monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 for non-residential purpose. The suit was decreed under section 12 (1) (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The appeal was filed. In appeal an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was submitted. Similar application was rejected by the trial Court. The first appellate Court had allowed the application and remanded the case to the trial Court on 26.10.1988. The order of remand was, however, set-aside by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 47 of 1989 and Misc. Appeal No. 26/89 on 23.7.1993 with direction to the first appellate Court to consider the application alongwith the merits and then pass appropriate order. This is how the first appeal was heard again. The first appellate Court dismissed the application for amendment and also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the tenants have filed this second appeal.

3. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing on 3.2.1994 on the following substantial questions of law :-

"(1) Whether the defendants have not been afforded adequate opportunity to produce their evidence before the trial Court by refusing to issue summons to the witnesses of the defendants?

(2) Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in disallowing the amendment applications filed by the present appellants seeking amendment in the written statement by deciding the merits of the averments made in the amendment application?

(3) Whether in view of questions Nos. (1) and (2) the finding recorded by the Courts below about the genuine need of the plaintiff is vitiated?"

4. I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior counsel with Shri K.S. Sharma, for the appellants and Shri L.P. Bhargava, learned senior counsel with Shri Oza, for the respondent, today.

5. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the opportunity to lead evidence was not properly given. He also submitted that the first appellate Court committed an error of law in considering the merits of the application and rejecting the application for amendment. The counsel has placed reliance on AIR 1949 Madras 467 (Dharmalonga Chetti v. Krishnaswami Chetty) and AIR 1984 Madras 19 (T.P. Palaniswami and another v. Deivanaiammal and others).

6. The counsel for the respondent has supported the decree and dubbed the aforesaid contentions as non-meritorious. He submitted that the aforesaid decisions do not apply in the case on hand.

7. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the allegations of agreement of sale were denied on affidavit. He categorically stated that at no time there was any attempt to sell the suit accommodation. He also submitted that no agreements, as alleged, were executed. On being questioned by the Court the counsel submitted that so far there is no suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the absence of suit for specific performance is not decisive of the matter and that at times there may be col1ision between vendor and vendee. The counsel for the respondent, however, submitted when there is no vendor and vendee, the question of collision is totally imaginary. He emphatically denied the allegations of agreements to sell either in 1984 or in 1988.

8. I proceed to consider the worth of rival contentions.

9. First of all I take up the question whether opportunity to lead evidence was properly denied. Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Code provides as under :-,

"2. Statement and production of evidence.

(1) On the