The cause of action for eviction consists of termination of contractual tenancy and the ground of eviction provided in the Act. No fresh permission is required for amending the eviction petition to include an additional ground.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) CM No. 15042/2004 in CM (M) NO. 355/2003 respondent no1. is stated to be the sole proprietorship of Mr. Nanak chand Dawar. The firm is stated to have been closed almost 10 years ago and the sole proprietor has passed away. Respondent no. 2 is the wife of Mr. Nanak chand Dawar who has also passed away. Respondent No. 3 is the son of Mr. Nanak chand Dawar and is stated to be the only legal representative and would thus represent the estate of the deceased father and the mother including the sole proprietorship concern. The said respondent has not appeared despite service and is proceeded ex parte.

( 2 ) THE application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 2 of the code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after referred to as the said Code) is for causing an entry to be made to record that only respondent no. 3 is entitled to defend the petition. The application is accordingly allowed. CM (M) No. 355/2003 cm (M) No. 358/2003 1. A common question of law has arisen in both the petitions wherein a common order has been passed by the trial court and the appellate tribunal. 2. The petitioner landlord originally filed eviction petitions under section 14 (1) (a) r/w Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The petitions have been pending for quite some time. The petitioner sought to amend the petition to incorporate the additional ground of subletting and seek eviction on the said ground under Section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act.

( 3 ) INSOFAR as the additional ground being urged is concerned, a judgment of the Full Bench of this court has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in Abnash Kaur v. Dr. Avinash Nayyar and Ors; 1974 1974 (10) DLT 270. The Full Bench has held that the cause of action for eviction is a combination of termination of contractual tenancy and the existence of circumstances depriving the tenant of the statutory protection given by the rent Control legislation. Thus on the cause of action arising consisting of the termination of the contractual tenancy and the ground of eviction provided in the Act existing at the time of filing the application, the landlord can file an eviction application. If a new ground for recovery of possession arises after the filing of the petition, then that can also be combined with the termination of the contractual tenancy to form a new cause of action and the landlord would be entitled to amendment of the existing eviction petition and urge the new ground to enlarge the cause of action. It was further held that he is also entitled to file a fresh petition by combining the new ground with the existing part of the cause of action but in practice the landlord would be well advised in amending the petition for eviction rather than filing a separate one as two different petitions would lead to uncertainty and multiplicity of proceedings.

( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid Full Bench Judgment, the issue about the amendment of an eviction petition and incorporating another ground which may have arisen subsequently is no more res integra. The only question which arises is that in the facts of two cases in question the properties are located in slum area and thus permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance ) Act is a prerequisite. Such a clearance had been obtained by the petitioner prior to institution of the eviction petitions.

( 5 ) BOTH the courts below have considered the legal ramifications of the aforesaid and have come to the conclusion that though in ordinary circumstances an amendment could have been allowed but in view of the tenanted premises being located in slum area, a fresh permission would be required while urging the additional ground. In this behalf, assistance has been taken of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Bishamber Nath and Ors v. Urmila and ors; 43 (1991) DLT 50. It may be noticed that the appellate tribunal has in