Judgment ( 1. ) Heard on the question of admission. ( 2. ) This appeal has been preferred by the tenant against a decree granted for eviction by the Courts below in concurrent manner. ( 3. ) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 were not applicable and therefore the suit could have been successful only in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is submitted that the tenancy was terminated without giving six months period, therefore, the termination is illegal and the suit ought to have been dismissed. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural of manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months notice. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly conceded that the rent notes contained in Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 are admitted documents. Monthly tenancy in respect of separate portions was created by these rent notes. Thus, in view of this contrary contract, the termination of tenancy by 15 days notice is quite legal. ( 4. ) It is submitted that the suit for eviction is illegally instituted against firm/present appellant-M/s. Kanhaiyalal Bidi Company, Bhopal through its Manager. According to learned counsel it is a Proprietorship Firm which ought to have been sued through its Proprietor. This submission in totally contrary to the material on record. Ex.P-16 is a letter issued by S. Kanhaiyalal Bidi Company, Bhopal through its Managar of Vidisha Branch. There is no iota on record to show that the said firm is Proprietorship concern. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to show that any such objection was raised in the pleadings. Thus, the submission being devoid of substance, is not liable to be accepted. ( 5. ) It is further stated that Ex. P-4 and Ex.P-5 are executed by different tenants and present common suit in respect of both the premises is not maintainable. According to learned counsel, Ex.P-4 was executed by Manager Bhagwanlal of M/s. Kanhaiyalal Bidi Company, Bhopal whereas another rent note Ex.P-5 was executed by Ramesh Giri, tenant of the plaintiff. ( 5. ) It is further stated that Ex. P-4 and Ex.P-5 are executed by different tenants and present common suit in respect of both the premises is not maintainable. According to learned counsel, Ex.P-4 was executed by Manager Bhagwanlal of M/s. Kanhaiyalal Bidi Company, Bhopal whereas another rent note Ex.P-5 was executed by Ramesh Giri, tenant of the plaintiff. It is found from the material on record that Ramesh Giri was none else than the Manager of defendant/company, which is revealed in Ex.P/6. In this letter, Ramesh Giri as Manager of S.Kanhaiyalal Bidi Company, had consented to the plaintiff for enhancement of rent. Thus, the subject-matter of rent in Ex.P/4 as well as Ex.P/5 are found in occupation of defendant/appellant and the factual scenario being common, common suit for eviction by the plaintiff is quite maintainable, more so, when the provisions of the Transfer ofProperty Act would govern the situation and the provisions of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act are not applicable. ( 6. ) Lastly, it is submitted that the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are illegally rejected by the learned lower appellate Judge. Reliance for this purpose has been placed on this Courts decision in the case of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal v. Firm M/s. Dinanath Gyasilal 2007 (1) JLJ 213 . Learned lower appellate Judge has rejected the applications on the ground that neither amendment nor proposed documents is necessary for just and complete decision of the suit. This Court has given anxious consideration to both the I.As. It has been stated that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff through its Manager. In another suit it has been stated that the Secretary was appointed in the year 2000. It is suffice to say that the earlier suit was instituted in the year 1994, therefore, appointment of Secretary in the year 2000 shall have no bearing on the earlier suit. Moreover, the defendant had ample opportunities to meet out the plaintiffs case. Thus, no prejudice is shown to have been caused due to rejection of the said application. In the case of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal (supra) is has been clearly observed that if no prejudice is established by non-disposal of application, the non-disposal of application itself is immaterial. No other point is pressed. ( 7. Thus, no prejudice is shown to have been caused due to rejection of the said application. In the case of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal (supra) is has been clearly observed that if no prejudice is established by non-disposal of application, the non-disposal of application itself is immaterial. No other point is pressed. ( 7. ) In the result, I do not find involvement of any substantial question of law. Appeal being devoid of force, is hereby dismissed summarily.