Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 383 (KAR)

PARASMAL JAIN v. M. NUSRUTHULLA SHARIFF

2017-02-07

S.SUJATHA

body2017
ORDER : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the II Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru on an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in HRC No.259/2011 whereby the said application is rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts are the respondents herein filed a suit for eviction under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 against the petitioner herein. The petitioner entered appearance and disputed the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the petitioner. In the said proceedings in HRC No. 259/2011, the petitioner filed I.A. under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend its statement of objections submitting that the respondents owned other properties of their own at Bengaluru City and other places. In view of the alternative accommodation available to the respondents, no bona fide requirement is found to evict the petitioner from the suit premises. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the question involved in this petition is technical. The property at Sultanpet at Bengaluru, which consists of Ground Floor with three additional floors is very well available to the respondents. This fact having come to the knowledge of the petitioner subsequent to filing of the written statement, the same was sought to be amended by incorporating these new facts, which was not appreciated by the trial court and ignoring the technical aspect involved in the matter, rejected the application contrary to the well established principles of law. Learned counsel further submits that HRC Nos.260/2011 and 261/2011 filed by the respondents seeking the premises for bona fide use were rejected by the trial Court. Thus, he seeks for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. V.B. Shivakumar appearing for the respondents justifying the impugned order would contend that the petitioner had taken the very stand now advanced in this application in the earlier application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed on 20.01.2014. The petitioner is repeatedly filing the applications under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure one after the other seeking permission of the Court to amend the objections filed to the main petition. The petitioner is repeatedly filing the applications under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure one after the other seeking permission of the Court to amend the objections filed to the main petition. Once, the previous application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to amend the statement of objections, pursuing the same facts in a different manner by filing another application is not maintainable. The trial Court after evaluating these aspects rightly rejected the application, which do not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It emerges that the petitioner herein has filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking for amendment of the written statement in the same proceedings, which came to be allowed on 20.01.2014. It appears, the same facts which are now canvassed in this application were the same set of facts before the Court, while seeking for amendment of the written statement. Considering the same, the previous application filed by the petitioner herein was allowed. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner got amended the objections filed to the main petition. It is very well observed by the trial Court that as per para No.21, the petitioner has already pleaded the said facts in his earlier application, which pertains to the requirement as alleged by the petitioner. The repetition in filing of the applications under Order 6, Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is ill-founded, more particularly, when the same facts were placed, the Court allowed the amendment application and the written statement/objections are amended. It is necessary to examine whether the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 is with a bona fide object of bringing some necessary facts, which are required for the determination of the dispute between the parties. The sequence of events as narrated above, clearly establishes that there is no necessity of the facts now put forth by the petitioner to determine the real controversy between the parties. It is imperative that the petitioner is protracting the litigation by filing multiple applications repeatedly in order to gain time. The conduct of the petitioner requires to be deprecated in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is imperative that the petitioner is protracting the litigation by filing multiple applications repeatedly in order to gain time. The conduct of the petitioner requires to be deprecated in the facts and circumstances of the case. The scope and ambit of filing the applications unnecessarily do not to be encouraged much against the principles of legally settled position. The availability of alternative premises/accommodation for the respondents is not a ground for the petitioner to file the repeated applications seeking for amendment of the written statement/objections. It is the option and requirement of the landlord to choose the premises for their bona fide use. As long as the bona fide use sought for is reasonable and is a necessity for the respondents-landlords, the tenant cannot poke his nose in the activities of the landlords to suggest that other premises are available for their bona fide use. No good ground made out by the petitioner, petition stands dismissed.