Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 970 (MP)

Jagdish Singh Kushwah v. Chandrakanta Kushwah

2018-11-20

SHEEL NAGU

body2018
ORDER 1. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked to assail interlocutory order dated 18.4.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed in RCS A/6800067/2016 by 15th Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior (M.P.), allowing an application preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein under Order 6 rule 17 CPC by assigning the reason that by doing so the nature of the suit does not undergo any change. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein under section 12(1)(a)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the 1961 Act'), inter alia pleadings bonafide need of unmarried daughter of plaintiff/landlord to do business in the suit accommodation. When the said suit was pending at the stage when issues had been framed but affidavits under Order 18 rule 4 CPC had not not been filed, the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC was moved by the plaintiff. Amendment in plaint was sought to the extent of changing the bonafide need of unmarried daughter as earlier alleged to that of bonafide need of unemployed son of the plaintiff/landlord by assigning reason that the unmarried daughter scheduled to get marriage in the near future. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner herein primarily submits by relying upon the decision of the apex Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, reported in 2009(10) SCC 84 (Para 63) and Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others reported in 2012(2) SCC 300 (Para 22 and 23) that by changing the bonafide need of unmarried daughter to that of the bonafide need to do business of the unemployed son of landlord, the entire cause of action is sought to be changed thereby changing the very nature of the suit during its pendency. 5. It is not disputed that trial in the suit has not commenced and therefore, the bar contained in proviso to Order 6 rule 17 CPC had not come into operation. This suit was originally filed under Order 12 rule 1(a)(f) seeking eviction inter alia on the ground of bonafide need of the unmarried daughter of the landlord to do business. 6. On allowing of the said application for amendment, the said bonafide need has now been changed to the bonafide need of the unmarried son to do business. 7. This suit was originally filed under Order 12 rule 1(a)(f) seeking eviction inter alia on the ground of bonafide need of the unmarried daughter of the landlord to do business. 6. On allowing of the said application for amendment, the said bonafide need has now been changed to the bonafide need of the unmarried son to do business. 7. To analyse the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned order, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of section 12(1)(f) of the 1961 Act as follows : “12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely : (a) XXXX XXXX XXXX (b) XXXX XXXX XXXX (c) XXXX XXXX XXXX (d) XXXX XXXX XXXX (e) XXXX XXXX XXXX (f) that the accommodation let for non-residential purposes is required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business or that of any of his major sons or unmarried daughters if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the accommodation is held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably non-residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned;” 8. From perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it is vivid that one of the grounds available to a landlord to file a civil suit for eviction against the tenant for accommodation for non residential purposes is that the same is required inter alia for bonafide need of major son or unmarried daughter of the landlord for starting his/her business and that there is no other reasonably suitable non residential accommodation of the landlord within the municipal precincts of the city/town concerned. 9. The basic thrust of argument of learned counsel for defendant/petitioner herein is that the impugned order leads to change in the basic nature of the suit. 9.1 The suit for eviction against the landlord can be filed on the availability of any of the cause of actions if available to the landlord under any or all of the clauses from (a) to (p) of section 12(1) of the 1961 Act. 9.1 The suit for eviction against the landlord can be filed on the availability of any of the cause of actions if available to the landlord under any or all of the clauses from (a) to (p) of section 12(1) of the 1961 Act. Thus, there are as many causes available to the landlord for filing a suit for eviction under section 12(1) of the 1961 Act as there are clauses from (a) to (p) under section 12(1) of 1961 Act. 10. Consequently, the question of change of nature of the suit can only arises if the cause being introduced by amendment in a pending suit is different than the cause raised at the institution of the suit. 10.1 The landlord/plaintiff in the instant case by filing the amendment application did not raise any cause of action under any of the clauses apart from clause (f) of section 12(1) but has merely changed the ultimate beneficiary under section 12(1)(f) from his unmarried daughter to that of his unemployed son. This change in the considered opinion of this Court does not lead to any change in the cause of action or the basic nature of the suit. The suit continues to be prosecuted under section 12(1)(f) of 1961 Act. 10.2 While taking this view which is supported by the earlier verdict of the case in M.P. No. 2804/2018 (Hind Kumar Kohali v. State of M.P.), [Published in 2018 (III) MPWN 41 ] the allowing of the application for amendment on the plaint application, does not call for any interference as the trial Court has not transgressed any of its jurisdictional limits set by law. 11. Moreso, the view taken by this Court is supported by law laid down by apex Court in Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others, reported in (2012) 11, Supreme Court Cases 341, Para 18 of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: “18. We reiterate that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.” 12. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.” 12. In view of above, the present petition stands dismissed.