JUDGMENT This appeal merits remand and that short order, I must pass today because the error of law manifested on the face of the impugned judgment is palpable. The appeal arises out of an eviction suit in which decree is passed by two Courts below on the ground of bona fide requirement contemplated under clause (f) of section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. At the appellate stage, the tenant, appellant before me and also in the Court below, filed two interlocutory applications. In I.A. Nos. II and III, he pleaded subsequent event and challenged the entitlement of the plaintiff/respondent for the decree prayed and granted, to be maintained by the lower appellate Court. He contended that during the course of the pendency of the /is, the need of the plaintiff/respondent had been satisfied in the manner stated. Hashmat Rai's leading case (1981 JLJ 716) was cited and of that notice was taken. But, benefit of that was refused by the lower appellate Court in a very peculiar manner. Without any enquiry being held on the allegation of the subsequent event pleaded, the Court below took up burden on itself and assuming itself the role of a witness it rendered the opinion that bona fide need of the landlord could not he said to be satisfied. How could that be done? Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel, appearing in this appeal for the landlord, plaintiff respondent, tried to support the order, but I do not think if in any view of the law, the order can he sustained because the fundamental principle of civil jurisprudence is violated. The Court acts as an umpire and not as a witness or as a party. In such matters, usually, question of amendment of plaint arises and that is a question of amendment of pleading and thereafter, the question of evidence arises and then decision is given. There is no scope for telescoping the process and reaching the decision finally without amendment of pleadings and evidence. For the short reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and also the decree passed by the Court below are set aside. A fresh decision shall he rendered after following due procedure of law as herein contemplated. Because there is no proper disposal of I.A. Nos. For the short reason aforesaid, the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court and also the decree passed by the Court below are set aside. A fresh decision shall he rendered after following due procedure of law as herein contemplated. Because there is no proper disposal of I.A. Nos. II and III, there is no proper hearing of the appeal and no proper disposal of the appeal. The appeal succeeds in terms of an order of remand, hut parties are left to hear there own costs; in. this Court. They shall appear in the Court below on 15.9.1992 and they shall take further orders thereat. Within six months, after amendment of pleadings and evidence, final order shall he passed disposing of afresh the appeal. Parties shall he required to keep their witnesses present in Court to establish their respective cases.