Hon'ble Dr. GOMBER, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 2.7.2008 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar in Civil appeal no.50/2004 whereby the application filed by petitioners (plaintiffs) seeking amendment of their pleadings on the ground that after the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, original plaintiff Kishan Chand Sharma for whose business the premises in question were needed, has died and, therefore, the premises in question are required for the business of his widow Vimla Devi, was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Kishan lal Sharma, the original plaintiff, the predecessor of present petitioners instituted a suit against the respondent for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit shop for carrying on stationery business therein. Said suit was decreed in favour of late Kishan lal Sharma (plaintiff) on 12.10.2004, as against which the defendant (respondent herein) filed an appeal before the District Judge, Alwar, which came to be transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar.

3. The respondent/defendant filed an application under O.6 R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') for amending the written-statement at the appellate stage, praying therein that on account of death of the original plaintiff, reasonable and bona fide necessity of the shop in question eclipsed. Said application was kept pending by the First Appellate Court with the observation that it would be decided along with the appeal.

4. Being aggrieved by this order of First Appellate Court, the respondent filed writ petition no.2688/08, which was allowed and the petitioners had also been given liberty to amend the plaint based on subsequent event.

5. Accordingly, the petitioners moved application under O.6 R.17 of the Code seeking amendment of plaint based on subsequent event that after the death of her husband, his widow petitioner no.1 would carry on business of stationery in the shop in question. This application was rejected by the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal no.50/2004 by order dated 2.7.2008. Hence the present petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned orders.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original plaintiff Kishan Lal Sharma required the shop in question for the stationery and books shop to have independent earning for him and his wife to support them in their post-retirement age. Now since he has passed away, his widow needs the shop to earn for her survival. According to him, the learned First Appellate Court has erred in holding the petitioner no.1 was old and that by amending the pleadings, the nature of suit would change because the necessity of the shop in question was for the landlord Kishan Lal Sharma and his wife as they could not be compelled to be dependent on their children and that the widow can run the shop by hiring a younger staff/assistant. It was prayed that the impugned order be set aside as the amendment on account of subsequent event, can be sought even at the appellate stage.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order, contended that the bona fide necessity of the original plaintiff came to an end after his death and by amendment of the pleadings, the nature of suit will change and such amendments cannot be allowed.

9. Considered the rival contentions advanced by the parties and have carefully gone through the case law cited at Bar.

10. One of the grounds for eviction contemplated by the Rent Control Legislation is the need of owner/landlord to have his premises, residential or non-residential, for his own use or his own occupation. The expression 'reasonable and bona fide necessity' employed in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, postulates that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction bet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document