Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1636 (RAJ)

Dr Prannath Bambani v. Keshav Das Goyal

2021-09-04

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
ORDER 1. By these two writ petitions, the petitioner-tenant has assailed the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal whereby applications moved by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 41 Rule 17 CPC were dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as he had learnt that the landlord non-petitioner had purchased the property which he was using as a tenant earlier, by a registered sale deed on 06.08.2019 and 27.08.2019, he sought prayer for amending his written statement in order to show that the personal bona fide necessity of the landlord has been distinguished as he is now the owner of the rented premises and he does not require the present premises for doing his business. Learned counsel submits that the amendment was necessary as it was in relation to the subsequent events and the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly rejected his application by going into the merits of the amendment application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord-non-petitioner submits that even if the amendment as sought would have been considered, the Appellate Tribunal has examined the prayer made by the landlord for requirement of premises for extending his business. Thus, while part of the premises has been purchased of the earlier rented premises by the non-petitioner, it would not extinguish his bona fide necessity as he has requested for vacating his own premises for the purpose of extending his business. The Appellate Tribunal has noticed the prayer made by the petitioner and learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chandra Shekher versus Bhanu Kumar reported in 2017 CJ(Rent Control) 172 and in the case of Rajendra Kumar & Anr. vs. Smt. Heera Devi & Ors. reported in 2019 CJ (Rent Control) 39 and also in the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani & Anr. versus Uttam Chand & Anr. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 490 in support of his submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh reported in AIR 2003 SC 624 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. versus K.K. Modi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 . 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the law as cited before this Court in Chandra Shekher (supra). 6. versus K.K. Modi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 . 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the law as cited before this Court in Chandra Shekher (supra). 6. After considering the law as held in Pratap Rai Tanwani (supra) and after considering an earlier judgment passed by this Court reported in the case of Legal Representatives of Abdulla vs. Phyambda Sharma reported in 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 175 it was held as under:- "Thus, upshot of the various decisions of the Apex Court and this court is that if the subsequent events sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings are of such nature that the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord stands completely eclipsed, then, only such amendment which is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue with regard to bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord can be allowed by the courts at any stage of the proceedings. That apart, such subsequent event must be brought to the notice of court by making an appropriate application promptly." 7. Similar view which was again reiterated in Rajendra Kumar (supra) is as under:- '16. Thus, upshot of the various decisions of the Apex Court is that if the subsequent events sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings are of such nature that the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord stands completely eclipsed, then such amendment which is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue with regard to bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord may be allowed by the courts." 8. In the case of At ma S. Berar (supra), the Supreme Court has held as unders:- '15. The learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were vitiated and the High Court was justified in interfering therewith especially in the light of the events which had taken place during the pendency of the proceedings. The power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is well-settled and undoubted. The power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is well-settled and undoubted. However, it is accompanied by three riders: firstly, the subsequent event should be brought promptly to the notice of the Court; secondly, it should be brought to the notice of the Court consistently with rules of procedure enabling Court to take note of such events and affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting or explaining such events; and thirdly, the subsequent event must have a material bearing on right to relief of any party. We have dealt with each one of the so-called subsequent events brought to the notice of the High Court as also of this Court by the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent. None of them cause a dent in the case of bona fides and need as were found proved by the authorities below the High court. Seen in the light of normal human nature and behavior, the events pendente lite rather reinforce the direness of the need. We need only remind ourselves of the observations made by three-Judges Bench of this Court in Prativa Devi's case (supra) - "the landlord isthe best judge of his residential requirements. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own". The High Court need not be solicitous and venture in suggesting what would be more appropriate for the landlord to do. "That was the look out of the appellant and not of the High Court. The gratuitous advice given by the High Court was uncalled for..... There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property". The present one, in our opinion, is an appropriate case where the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the two authorities below and that too concurrently, in exercise of its revision a I jurisdiction simply because it was inclined to have a different opinion." 9. The present one, in our opinion, is an appropriate case where the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the two authorities below and that too concurrently, in exercise of its revision a I jurisdiction simply because it was inclined to have a different opinion." 9. Thus, in the cases relating to the Rent Control Act if there is a claim for seeking eviction of commercial premises on the ground of bona fide necessity, law is being held consistently that the bona fide necessity would not be eclipsed merely on account of subsequent events and it is essentially to be seen at the stage the application has been filed. 10. The law as laid down by Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) was with reference to proceedings in a civil suit and it was held generally that the object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is that the Court should try on the merits of the case that comes before them and should in normal course allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice to prejudice to the other side. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid, if we examine the present case, we find that the Tribunal has already passed an order for eviction against which the tenant has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had taken into consideration the written statement as well as the contentions raised by the applicant-plaintiff and reached to the conclusions that in cases where bona fide necessity exists Appellate Tribunal would only examine the legality and illegality in reaching to such a conclusion and at the stage of delay therefore, allowing such an amendment would be nothing but to allow the benefit to delay the entire process. The bona fide necessity still exists and therefore, no amendment was required to be allowed at this stage. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13. The other writ petition bearing No.4718/2021 has been preferred for assailing the order by which the application Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was decided and rejected. 14. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is found to be devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13. The other writ petition bearing No.4718/2021 has been preferred for assailing the order by which the application Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was decided and rejected. 14. Learned counsel has taken objection that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC ought to be decided while deciding the appeal itself and has relied on judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus T.N. Sahani & Ors. reported in (2001) 10 SCC 619 . 15. While the law settled by the Supreme Court holds the field, taking into consideration that strict rule of CPC would not be applicable in cases relating to Rent Control Act and the provisions of CPC should essentially be guiding force and considering that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has already been rejected, no purpose would be served in keeping the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC pending till disposal of the appeal. 16. In view thereof, the orders passed by this Court and Appellate Tribunal do not warrant any interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 17. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.