J.P. Gupta, for Respondents

Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 3rd October, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Beawar, District Ajmer dismissed the application of the petitioner-applicant filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement of defence.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court for eviction of tenants-petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity and recovery of rent. After conclusion of trial the suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the petitioner-defendant. It is stated by the petitioner that during pendency of the suit Dr. Ashok Gangwani vacated the shop on 22nd March, 2010 and handed over its possession to the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court on 22nd February, 2010.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the statement of the plaintiff deposed before the trial Court as also the cross examination and contended that the respondent-plaintiff had categorically deposed on oath that in case the shop was vacated by Dr. Ashok Gangwani, he could let out the same to the petitioner-defendant. After the shop having been vacated by Dr. Ashok Gangwani, the bonafide necessity of Ranjeet has come to an end and thus, on account of subsequent events having emerged in the case, the amendment was required to be necessarily made in the written statement of defence. The learned trial Court sans assigning any cogent reason, arbitrarily dismissed this application, whereas the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard is that when any subsequent event emerges, the party should be permitted to bring that event on record, by way of an amendment in the pleadings. In view of this position, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order needs to be set aside.

4. E-converso, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended that the court has to see the bonafide necessity of the landlord in respect of suit premises of that day when the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff. If any subsequent event with regard to the necessity of suit premises emerges, that does not mean that the bonafide necessity of that day ceased or became non-existent.

5. Learned counsel cited two judgments one of Phool Chand vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Rajasthan 156 = 2008(3) RLW 2670 and second, Govind Kumar Soni vs. Addl. Dist. Judge & Anr. reported in 2010(2) CDR 1090 (Raj.) to substantiate his case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also found to have cited one case of Murlidhar vs. Nand Kishore & Ors. reported in 2006 (2) DNJ, 861 = RLW 2006(2) Raj. 1687.

7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it has become necessary to have a bird's eye view of the afore-stated judgments.

8. In the case of Murlidhar vs. Nandkishore & Ors (Supra) this Court has observed thus in para 16 thus:

This, however, does not mean that events happening after institution of suit/proceeding, cannot be considered at all. It is the power and duty of the Court to consider changed circumstances.? Court of law may take into account subsequent events inter alia in the following circumstances:

(i) the relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or

(ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten litigation; or

(iii) It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties.

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this observation of this Court, if any subsequent change or circumstance emerges a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document