Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)North Eastern Railway Administration, ... vs Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs on 11 April, 2008
(7) Shri H.S.Patel, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant placed reliance on North Eastern
Railway Admin, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs.,
2008 SAR (Civil) 490 while arguing that the lower
appellate Court ought to have allowed the application
for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure filed by the appellant/defendant to
introduce a subsequent event by way of pleadings. It
was urged that the amendment if allowed would have
shown that a reasonably suitable accommodation in
Raigarh had been let out by the respondent/plaintiff
after it fell vacant. It was also argued that the
decree for eviction of the tenant on the basis of a
composite need could not be passed since the
accommodation was let out purely for residential
purpose.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Smt Sarla Devi Gupta vs Smt Tara Devi Dubey on 3 July, 2007
Reliance was placed on Smt. Sarla Devi Gupta
vs. Smt. Tara Devi Dubey, 2007 (3) C.G.L.J. 88.
(8) On the other hand, Shri Abhijeet Sarkar,
learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argued in
support of the impugned judgment and decree and urged
that the respondent/plaintiff had proved the notice
dated 23-04-1984 Ex.P-6 given by his brothers which
would go to show that the respondent/plaintiff was
asked to vacate the joint family residence and also the
garage where he was carrying on his gas-welding
business. It was further urged that the suit was
instituted on 17-07-1984 and the amendment sought by
the appellant/defendant revealed that the accommodation
on vacation by Manharan Singh Thakur, a tenant in April-
May, 1983, the respondent/plaintiff had let out that
accommodation in January, 1984. It was urged that the
notice to vacate the joint family residence was given
by the brothers of the respondent/plaintiff on 23-04-
1984, i.e., much after the respondent/plaintiff had let
out the abovementioned accommodation to Hariram in
January, 1984. In a suit for eviction, the
respondent/plaintiff was required to establish bona
fide requirement on the date of the suit, therefore,
the lower appellate Court was wholly justified in
rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure filed by the
appellant/defendant.
1