1997 (2) MPLJ 327 T.S. Doabia, J. Om Prakash S/O Puranchandra vs Nandkishore DECIDED ON : 8 July, 1996 ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. Heard. 1. A suit was filed Under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1%1. This suit was filed by Kastoori Devi. She has since died. An application was moved by Omprakash during the life time of Kastoori Devi. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that applicant had acquired the property on account of family partition. This application is said to have been allowed. After this application was allowed a further prayer was made. This was under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plea taken was that premises are required for bona fide need of Omprakash. This prayer has been rejected. Against this order, the present petition has been preferred. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no error has been committed by the trial Court. According to him, if the original landlord dies then the question of deciding the plea of bona fide need of original landlord would not arise. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as Anand v. Gomti Bat, 1982 MPLJ SN. 25. 2. It is not in dispute that a suit for getting the premises vacated Under Section 12(1)(f) would be maintainable on the part of the Omprakash also. The counsel submits that in view of the decision of this Court, reported as Vidhya Devi v. Sat Prakash, 1981 MPRCJ 53, the prayer for amendment can be allowed. It was held as under :- "A Division Bench of this Court in Sheoshankar v. A.D.C. Nagpur held that where the family house of which a portion is let out is partitioned and the portion is allotted to the applicant latter becomes landlord within the meaning of Clause 2, C. P. and Berar House Rent Control Order whatever the motive of the partition may be. This has further been clarified in Single Bench decision in Jagjiwan v. Radha Kishan that "it was immaterial to enquire whether motive of partition was to evict the respondent; that the partition deed must be given effect to and that the petitioner was entitled to permission." As a matter of fact, I have taken similar view in Civil Revision No. 76 of 19%, decided on 30th of January, 1996. Para 5 of the order passed in this Civil Revision is relevant for the purposes of the disposal of this petition also and be noticed : "I am of the view that merely because delayed prayer has been made for seeking amendment, this would not be a ground to disallow the same. It is not in dispute that petitioners in their own rights can seek eviction Under Section 12(1)(f) of the aforesaid Act. If they can file a separate suit, then there is no valid justification to deny this relief by way of amendment. As to what prejudice would be caused to the respondents is not apparent. Thus, it would be apt to not to give this relief at this stage. Death of the original landlord and the need of the present petitioners would fall within the definition of the term 'subsequent events'. These cannot be ignored and are required to be taken note of." 3. It would not be out of place to mention here that Special Leave Appeal in the above case was declined by the Supreme Court of India on 8th of May, 1996. The number of this Special Leave to appeal is 10666 of 1996. 4. I am of the view that there would be no injustice caused to the respondent, if application under Order 6, Rule 17 is allowed. When the right to file the suit for eviction exist and if this can be exercised by the landlord then he cannot be deprived of amending his pleadings. This would obviate delay which is so inherent in these proceedings. The plaint would be deemed to have been filed on the day application under Order 6, Rule 17 was filed. Disposed of accordingly.