1980 Supreme(MP) 379

S. S. Sharma, J.
Dinanath v. Kishore Kumar
C. Revn. No. 772 of 1980 (1) ; Decided on 31-10-1980.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 12 (1) (e) & (4) - suit for eviction under clause (e) - when may be filed by a transferee landlord - whether ground for bonafide requirement may be added by way of amendment in a suit filed before expiry of one year from the date of transfer - Civil P.C. 1908 - O. 6, R. 17 and R. 7.

        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6, R. 17 and O. 7. R. 7 -- amendment of plaint under -- when may be allowed in a suit for eviction -- subsequent event -- what is -- Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (1) (e) and (4).

        The non-applicant plaintiff filed a suit against the present applicant-defendant for ejectment etc. This suit was tiled on 9-12-1976. Non-applicant-plaintiff purchased the suit house by registered sale-deed 30-6-1976 During the pendency of the suit an application dated 4-7-1980 was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff for amending the plaint. By this amendment paragraph 4-A was sought to be added in the plaint. By this proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to take the ground of bona fide requirement also as contained in section 12(1) (e) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejecting the non-applicant defendant from the suit accommodation. This application was opposed on behalf of the applicant-defendant. The trial Court by the impugned order allowed this application for amendment on payment of costs.

        Held : Admittedly, when the suit was filed, period of one year had not elapsed from the date of the purchase of the suit property by non-applicant plaintiff. The application for amendment was certainly tiled after one year but the ground sought to be added is the one contained in section 12 (1) (e) of the Act. Learned counsel for the non-applicant-plaintiff placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B. Baberjee v. Smt. Anita Pan, (AIR 1975 SC 1146), in support of his contention that this amendment which was sought after one year of the date of purchase of the suit house could be allowed notwithstanding section 12 (4) of the Act. This decision of their Lordships has been considered in Harisingh v. Madanlal (S.A. No. 571 of 1974) decided on 27-3-1979 by Oza, J.

        The opening words of section 12 (1) of the Act are that "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :--

        I have already referred to section 12 (4) of the Act. On a reading of these two provisions it is crystal clear that the plaintiff could not have taken the ground for ejectment as is now sought to be added at the time when the suit was filed. It could not be disputed that in case, the proposed amendment is allowed it would take effect from the date of the suit. That being so this would clearly contravene the provisions of section 12 (1) and (4) of the Act which have been referred to above. The principle of allowing amendment as a result of the subsequent events, cannot be made applicable to a case like this. AIR 1975 SC 1146 distinguished, S. A. No. 571 of 1974 decided on 27-3-1979 relied on. Revision allowed.