Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1184 (PNJ)

Ram Kumar v. Suranjbans Singh Bakshi

2010-03-15

S.D.ANAND

body2010
Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1 The landlord (petitioner herein) had filed a plea for ejectment of the tenant (respondent herein) from the tenanted premises on a plea of personal bonafide necessity. The plea, raised in the context, was that the landlord requires the tenanted premises for parking of a car bearing registration No.PCR-9131, of which he was the registered owner. 2 The petition came to be negatived by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 25.10.2007. 3 In the course of an appeal filed by the landlord, he filed twe pleas, one for the leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence to prove that he had sold off car bearing registration No.PCR-9131 during the pendency of the trial before the learned Rent Controller and had purchased another vehicle in the meantime bearing registration No.PB-08-W-5770 and the other for the amendment of the plea raised in the ejectment action. The leave applied for was to be able to produce on record the registration certificate of the car bearing registration No.PB-08-W-5770 aforementioned. 4 The plea under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC came to be filed in the first instance; while the plea under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC came to be followed during the pendency of the former plea. Both the pleas came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Authority (subject to payment of costs), vide order dated 9.1.2010. 5 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant, argued that the allowance of pleas aforementioned (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as also plea under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC) is incompetent in the absence of a finding by the learned Appellate Authority to the effect that the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial inspite of the exercise of due diligence. Reliance, in support of the advocated plea, was placed upon Vidya Bhai and others v. Padmalatha and another, (2009-2)154 P.L.R. 491, Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 806:(2006) 12 S.C.C. 1, Shyam Gopal Bindal and others v. Land Acquisition Officer and another 2010(1) Civil Court Cases 707 (S.C); Mohd. Sadik and others v. Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh and others 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 966. Sadik and others v. Chandigarh Administration through Labour Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh and others 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 966. 6 I have not been able to persuade myself to find any force in the plea to challenge the order under consideration. Though there can, obviously, be no dispute with the proposition of law as enunciated by the Apex Court and also this Court in the Judicial pronouncements aforementioned, it also cannot be wished away that all that resposdent-landlord has been allowed by the learned Appellate Authority is to aver and prove on record that the car bearing registration No.PCR-1931 came to be sold off during the pendency of the trial and that he had purchased another car bearing registration No.PB-08-W-5770. There is, however, no change in the averred plea that the tenanted premises are required by the respondent-landlord for use thereof as a garage i.e. for parking of a car owned by him. The finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller qua non-production of proof qua ownership of car owned by him notwithstanding, the vitality of the law lies in allowing the parties to contest their respective averments at law, particularly when there can possibly be no feasibility of the facts having been manufactured in the meantime. Whether the respondent-landlord did purchase car bearing registration No.PB-08-W-5770 during the pendency of the trial or not is a matter "qua which the grant of relief would enable reception of evidence which would further be subject to scrutiny on the touch stone of cross-examination. 7 In the light of foregoing discussion, both the petitions are held to be denuded of merit and are ordered to be dismissed.