The grounds for eviction enumerated in the various clauses of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are not causes of action, but are conditions that take away the tenant's protection and remove the impediment in the way of the landlord recovering possession.

( 1 ) WHILE a petition by the landlord (Respondent No. 1) for the eviction of the tenant (petitioner) on the ground of non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) was pending for some time, the landlord went to inspect the premises and is said to have found that the premises had been substantially damaged by the tenant.

( 2 ) HE, therefore, applied for an amendment of the petition for eviction with a view to add another ground for the eviction of the tenant under clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14" namely, that the tenant has caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises. The Rent controller allowed the petition to be amended apparently because only an additional ground to claim the same relief of eviction was being added. The tenant (petitioner) has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution alleging that the said order of the controller allowing the amendment was without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of order VI rule 17 of the civil procedure Code and is liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) IN support of her contention, the petitioner mainly relied upon an unreported decision of Mehar Singh and S. B. Capoor. JJ. sitting as the circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi holding that in a petition for eviction filed on existing grounds an additional ground arising subsequent to the filing of the petition cannot be added by way or amendment. Prakash Narain, J. , before whom the petition came for hearing was of the view that the Division Bench decision perhaps required reconsideration and, therefore, REFERRED TO the same question which had been decided by the Division Bench for the consideration of a Full Bench, namely: -

"has the rent controller under (Delhi Rent Control Act) Act 59 of 1958 power and jurisdiction to allow an amendment so as to add a new ground of eviction in an already pending eviction application, though the new ground of eviction occurred after the date of the institution of the pending application, if a ground or grounds of eviction other than the new ground have already been taken by the landlord against the tenant"?

( 4 ) APPLICATION for amendment of petitions for eviction filed under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act are frequently made. While orders made on such applications have grave consequences for the parties to the petition, nevertheless, the majority of such orders would be procedural in their nature and not ordinarily appealable. They would be challenged mostly, therefore, either in an appeal against the final decision of the Controller disposing of the eviction petition or by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. If in these proceedings these orders are set aside, the cases are likely to be remanded to the Controller thus causing additional delay in their disposal. It is important, therefore, that all the relevant considerations bearing on the question whether an amendment should be allowed or disallowed should be borne in mind by the Controller. These relevant considerations may. therefore, be enumerated as below:-

(A) When an amendment of a pleading can and should be allowed:

(B) When it cannot or should not be allowed ;

(C) The nature of the grounds for eviction enumerated in the various clauses of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act vis-a-vis the above considerations.

(A) When amendment can and should he allowed:-

( 5 ) THE words "power and jurisdiction to allow an amendment" in this context do not mean the initial jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment. The word "jurisdiction" here has the same meaning as the word "power". Both point to the power given by the statutory provisions to the Court to either allow or disallow an application for amendment according as the requirements of the statutory provisions for allowing an amendment arc satisfied