Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 539 (PNJ)

Surinder Kaur Bakshi v. Chopra Glass House

2013-04-29

K.KANNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petition for amendment of rent petition for eviction was dismissed by the Appellate Court and the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal on the ground that the amendment become necessary only on the fact of subsequent event and hence it ought not to have been dismissed. 2. The petition for eviction among other grounds was for personal necessity of the landlord and the wife of petitioner No.1 had a contention to make that he was intending to start a professional coaching centre at the demised property. He would explain the need by saying that his own children were studying in professional course and the costs of education were high. He had to augment his income by putting his own knowledge to appropriate use. He explained his own ability in teaching with the assistance of his daughter-in-law who was also very highly qualified and the type of user that he intended to make at the demised premises, after securing eviction. 3. It appears that the petition had been filed for amendment before the Rent Controller taking a calculation that the first petitioner had died and the property was necessary also for the needs of the sons and grand sons. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner introduced a wholly new case and therefore there was no ground for entertaining the petition. 4. The law of taking note of the subsequent event came through essentially in rent control jurisdiction. Otherwise, the conventional understanding was that the case has to be decided only on the facts at the time of institution of suit. A subsequent event is always a relevant issue more particularly while examining the personal necessity of the landlord. It is on the pretext that the necessity must exist not merely at the time of filing of the petition, it must subsist till an order of eviction is passed. This is allowed for situations where the landlord acquires some other property or he has let out a vacant possession of yet another item of property subsequent to the petition to examine the bona fides. This is allowed for situations where the landlord acquires some other property or he has let out a vacant possession of yet another item of property subsequent to the petition to examine the bona fides. In this case the subsequent event has been that the man who wanted to start a tuition centre and put the property for augmenting his income was no longer alive and therefore the need came to be readjusted for a member of the family by including appropriate averments in the petition. If this subsequent event were to be taken as relevant, then the only issue would be whether the petitioner must be allowed to prosecute the same petition with amendment incorporated or he should be driven to a separate petition. The issue of whether amendment should be allowed or not is also from a perspective of whether it will scuttle a needless multiplicity of proceedings. This has to be in turn in the context of whether there is any statutory bar regarding the plea, if any independent case were to be filed. If the legal representatives were to file a fresh petition with a new fact, then again the tenant could have a contention that he is needlessly made to defend yet another case but beyond that, this could be no plea that the petition is in any way barred. 5. Learned counsel for the tenant-respondent cites before me several judgments of the Supreme Court to contend that such a subsequent even cannot be incorporated. In Seshambal Vs. M/s Chelur Corporation Chelur 2010 (3) SCC 470 the benefit of requirement of the legal heirs was sought to be introduced while at the stage of impleading the L.Rs. Case was pending before the High Court when the party died during the pendency of the appeal. Even the wife had died and three married daughters of the deceased sought amendment. The Court found that eviction which was sought by the landlord was made at the personal requirement with no mention regarding requirement of the family members. There would be no scope for allowing for the amendment to prosecute the case at the High Court. Even the wife had died and three married daughters of the deceased sought amendment. The Court found that eviction which was sought by the landlord was made at the personal requirement with no mention regarding requirement of the family members. There would be no scope for allowing for the amendment to prosecute the case at the High Court. The fact that death occurred when the proceedings were pending before the High Court and the amendment would bring a whole scope for a new evidence and commencement of fresh trial, the Court found that it was not possible to allow for such a prayer. I would find that it makes all the difference, for, in this case the proceedings were still before the Rent Controller and the person had died. The matter would be completely different only if the application were to have been moved at the Appellate or High Court. I will not therefore find any need for application of the judgment to this case. 6. In Raj Kumar Vij Vs. Hem Raj Singla 2007 (2) RCR(Rent) 597, the bona fide requirement of the legal heirs was sought to be introduced by the landlord seeking eviction of tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The need of members of the family had not been pleaded originally and on the death of the landlady, the Court found did not allow for the legal heirs to be brought to continue the proceedings. In so doing the Court found that as a matter of fact, the landlady had not appeared in the witness box in support of her own case. The bona fide requirement, only the evidence of Power of Attorney had been placed before Court. When the eviction petition had been dismissed, the Court found it was not open to the Court to accept that plea merely on the statement of the attorney. I find in this case that the issue has not been considered as to how the amendment could cause any prejudice to the party. I do not find any point to be influenced by this judgment also. This Court itself had in Naresh Kumar Vs. Krishal Lal Kohli 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 28 considered an issue of amendment in the context of death of a brother of the landlord. The landlord wanted to settle his own business who had lost his father. The petition had been dismissed. This Court itself had in Naresh Kumar Vs. Krishal Lal Kohli 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 28 considered an issue of amendment in the context of death of a brother of the landlord. The landlord wanted to settle his own business who had lost his father. The petition had been dismissed. The Court found that nephew was not dependent on the landlord and therefore it could not be pursued by him. This instant case addresses of the necessity for amendment for requirement of a person who is grand son. In case of persons who are dependents, it is a matter that could be appropriately pleaded. I will not find any reason to prevent such an amendment. Yet another judgment in Baljit Kumar Sharma Vs. Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal 2013 (1)RCR (Rent) 260 was cited which was a case of personal requirement. This Court held that bona fide requirement of the landlord will have to be tested by need of the landlord. This case was not in the context of requirement of amendment, I will therefore not find any reason to apply this judgment as well. 7. The decision of the Court below is erroneous and it is set aside. The respondent is at liberty to file an additional reply to the amended pleading. It is needless to state that parties are entitled to bring additional evidence on their respective sides on the basis of amended pleadings and reply. The additional evidence will form part of the evidence already recorded and the Court will proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. 8. The revision petition is disposed of.