Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1000 (PAT)

Narendra Prasad Saha v. Anand Kumar Sharaff

2000-08-16

P.K.DEB

body2000
Judgment 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 14.3.2000 passed by the Sub-Judge III, Deoghar, in Title Suit no. 6 of 1992 whereby the prayer made by the added plaintiff-opposite parties for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. 2. Originally the suit was filed by opposite party no.1 against the father of the petitioner for eviction on the ground of default. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have purchased the suit premises during the pendency of the suit by registered sale deed dated 17.11.1997 and on purchase they prayed to be added as coplaintiffs under Order 1 rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allowed. Then a petition was filed under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint to add a new paragraph 9(A) in the plaint praying to add a further ground of personal necessity for the purpose of eviction. Such a ground was stated in the following manner that plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are contemplating to start a hotel business in the suit premises and for that purpose the suit premises have been purchased by them. Such prayer of amendment has been resisted by the petitioner-defendant on the ground that the added plaintiffs i.e. the purchasers from the original plaintiff cannot add the new ground of personal necessity as the same was available only to the original landlord but such objection has been rejected by the learned court below and amendment as prayed for was allowed by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition. 3. Mr. Maitin, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner by referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1989 Patna 13 : 1988 PLJR 950 (Ram Tahal Modi V/s. Ratan Lal) submitted that grounds of eviction as contemplated under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act as enumerated under Section 11 of the Act was only available to the original landlord and the same cannot be available to the purchasers during the pendency of the suit. It appears that in the reported case the landlord sought eviction on the ground of defaulter and also on payment of arrears of rent but while selling of the suit premises the arrears of rent had not been specifically assigned to the purchasers and hence it was held that the purchasers cannot maintain the suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and in paragraph-14 of that judgment it was just mentioned that all grounds of eviction as contemplated under Section 11(1)(c) such as personal necessity may not be available to the transferee pendete lite. But that was not the issue in the judgment and, as such, such observation can only be construed per incuriam. The issue was whether the suit filed by the original landlord for arrears of rent and eviction on the ground of defaulter can be made available to the purchasers pendete lite to continue with the suit as such. It was held by the Division Bench that when the arrears of rent had not been specifically assigned in the purchase deed, the purchasers pendete lite can not maintain the suit on that ground. An eviction suit can be maintained by the landlord on one ground or on all the grounds as contemplated under Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-landlord for eviction on the ground of defaulter and the purchasers have made as co-plaintiffs in the suit and according to them, the suit premises have been purchased for their personal necessity and, as such, the same suit was desired to be continued by putting the further grounds of personal necessity. It has also been mentioned that in the sale deed itself the arrears of rent had been assigned to the transferee plaintiffs. It has also been held by different Benches of this Court that if any subsequent event arises or for such subsequent situation and position any other ground of eviction was available to the landlord the same may be included in the same eviction suit and for that purpose no other suit should be filed. Here the added plaintiffs had filed petition for adding the grounds of personal necessity together with whatever ground which was already taken by the original landlord. 4. Here the added plaintiffs had filed petition for adding the grounds of personal necessity together with whatever ground which was already taken by the original landlord. 4. Hence, I do not ffnd that such subsequent position could not be made available in the same suit and for that reason a separate suit is to be filed by the transferee pendente lite. A single Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 2000(2) PLJR 506 (Kamal Singh Jain V/s. Zaidur Rahman) gives support to the above contention although the factual aspects are different. The impugned order cannot be said to be illegal and multiplicity of the eviction suit has been curtailed by inclusion of other grounds of eviction. Cause of action might have arisen at the subsequent stage of the eviction suit itself. Neither the impugned order is illegal for suffering from jurisdictional error. 5. Hence, there is no force in the revision petition and the same is rejected. But no order as to costs.