S. S. Sharma, J

1. The plaintiffs-non-applicants filed a suit for ejectment etc. against the applicant defendant-tenant. The suit for ejectment was based on the plaintiff's bona fide requirement of the suit accommodation for their residence. The suit for ejectment was decreed by the trial Court on 31-10-1974. Against that judgment and decree the applicant-defendant filed an appeal, being First Appeal No.79-A of 1974; which is pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bhopal. In that appeal the applicant defendant filed two applications for amendment of the written statement. By these proposed amendments the defendant wanted to allege that the plaintiffs have obtained possession of accommodations, one as a result of a decree dated 30-7-1975, passed in another civil suit and the other because of having fallen vacant. These amendment applications were rejected by the Additional District Judge. One of the reasons for rejecting these applications was that the defendant cannot rely on the events subsequent to the passing of the decree. In support of these reasonings, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Taramal v. Laxman 1971 JLJ 772=1971 MPLJ 888, Aggrieved by this order, the defendant filed the revision.

2. When the revision was heard by learned Single Judge of this Court, the correctness of the decision in Taramal's Case was challenged in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409, learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the ruling in Taramal's Case required reconsideration. The following question was, therefore, referred to a Division Bench:-

''Whether a defendant-tenant against whom a decree for eviction is passed under S. 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, can plead before the appellate Court by amending the written statement, that the need of the landlord has come to an end because of his coming into possession of another reasonably suitable accommodation subsequent to the passing of the decree; and whether the view expressed on this point in Taramal v. Laxman 1971 JLJ 772=1971 MPLJ 888, is correct ?"

3. In Taramal's Case (supra) a suit for ejectment was filed for locating a lawyer's office for Ku. Parmeshwari Surey who was a member of the family of the landlord and was a practicing advocate. In the appeal the findings that the plaintiff's requirement was a genuine one and there was no suitable place in the residential house of the landlord for locating that office were not challenged. The main question urged in that appeal was whether the word 'business' in section 12 (1) (f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') includes the practice of a profession. It was, however, held that the practice of a profession will also be included within the meaning of the word 'business' as used in the aforesaid sub-section of the Act.

4. In Taramal's Case (supra), the appellant-tenant had also pressed an application for amendment of the written statement which was rejected by the Court below. From the report of Taramal's Case it is not clear as to what amendment was sought by the appellant-tenant. This prayer for amendment was rejected with the following observations:-

"The protection to a statutory tenant lapses with the passing of a decree and such a person has no right to bring on record new circumstances which were not in existence on the date of passing of the decree. That is a conclusion which is irresistible from the definition of a tenant in section 2 (i) of the Act which excludes a person from the category of a tenant, against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made. Although, an appeal is in the nature of a continuation of the suit, nevertheless, the statutory tenant cannot urge any new facts which subsequently came into existence. Apart from this, the application cannot be granted as it is vague and lacking in particulars