Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.P.SEHGAL - Appellant
Versus
VIDYA KAUL - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 11 of 1982
Decided On : 02/28/1989
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - NECESSITY AND INJUSTICE - AMENDMENT OF EVICTION PETITION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS - DELAY - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE OF SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her residence and her family members depending upon her. The respondent-landlady completed her evidence and thereafter moved an application for amendment of the petition alleging changes in circumstances, including the vacation of the ground floor portion by another tenant and the shifting of her son-in-law and his family to Delhi. The amendment was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller, subject to payment of costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy, namely, whether the premises were required bona fide by the respondent-landlady for occupation as residence for herself or any member of her family. The court also held that the amendment could be allowed without injustice to the petitioner-tenant by awarding costs. The court further held that the subsequent developments, such as the vacation of the ground floor portion, could be taken into consideration by the court, but this did not mean that no amendment should be allowed. The court also held that the amendment was not belated so as to work injustice to the petitioner-tenant and which could not be compensated with costs. Finally, the court held that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable as the Additional Rent Controller had exercised jurisdiction within the limits of his authority and there was no defect in the exercise of his jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of the eviction petition was necessary for determining the real question in controversy? 2. Whether the amendment could be allowed without injustice to the petitioner-tenant? 3. Whether the subsequent developments could be taken into consideration by the court? 4. Whether the amendment was belated so as to work injustice to the petitioner-tenant? 5. Whether the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy, namely, whether the premises were required bona fide by the respondent-landlady for occupation as residence for herself or any member of her family. 2. The amendment could be allowed without injustice to the petitioner-tenant by awarding costs. 3. The subsequent developments, such as the vacation of the ground floor portion, could be taken into consideration by the court, but this did not mean that no amendment should be allowed. 4. The amendment was not belated so as to work injustice to the petitioner-tenant and which could not be compensated with costs. 5. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable as the Additional Rent Controller had exercised jurisdiction within the limits of his authority and there was no defect in the exercise of his jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs. The stay order granted on 18th January, 1983 was vacated.
( 1 ) THE petitioner-tenant by this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of Shri V. B. Gupts. Additional Rent Controller Delhi dated 6th August. 1981 whereby he has allowed the amendment peti tion filed by the respondent-landlady for ejectment under Chapter 3-A, Section 25 (b) read with Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ).
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent-landlady filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises in House No. 7133, Roop Nagar, Delhi on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her residence and her family members depending upon her The family of the respondent-landlady comprises of two grown up unmarried daughters, one married daughter, three sons, two of whom are married and a servant and that the portion in occupation of the respondent-landlady in the said house was not sufficient to accommodate the whole family and that she had no other reasonable suitable accommodation in Delhi.
( 3 ) THE respondent-landlady completed her evidence on 20th January, 1981 and thereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner-tenant. However, before that on 2nd April, 1981 she moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition alleging, inter alia, that after the institution of the suit there had been lot of changes in the circumstances inasmuch as the ground floor portion in the property in suit which was under the tenancy of one Shri J. N. Gupta was vacated by him on 27th March, 1979 and she has shifted to the ground floor. It was also stated that her son-in-law retired from Indian Aluminium Company. Calcutta and the said son-in-law along with his wife and other family members are to shift in Delhi to live with her in her old age. It was also stated that her daughter is seeking admission in Central Education Institute of Delhi and would live with her and that the accommodation available with her was most inadequate and insufficient and with a view to explain the present position regarding accommodation available to her and the manner it was being used, she wanted to amend the petition. The amendment application hied by the respondent-landlady was, however, opposed by the petitioner-tenant:
( 4 ) BY the impugned order dated 6th August, 1981 the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the amendment prayed for.
( 5 ) FOR the purpose of allowing the amendments two conditions must be satisfied and they are : (i) that the amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties; and (ii) that the amendment should not work injustice to the other side. In this connection reference is made to Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidagonda Patil and others (AIR 1957 SC 363- (1) wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :
"all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) not working injustice to the other ?ide, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused: to allow it would he to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a "good defence to the claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same : can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not ?"
( 6 ) THERE
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
