A subsequent event having material bearing on the issue can be permitted to be incorporated by way of an amendment under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby, an application filed by the respondents-applicants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2001') seeking amendment in the Original Application, has been allowed.

2. The facts in brief are that late Govind Prasad Agarwal, father of the respondents no.1/1 to 1/3 and Smt. Renu filed an Original Application seeking eviction of the petitioners/non-applicants from the suit shop on the ground interalia, of their reasonable and bonafide necessity. During its pendency, the applicant no.1, Shri Govind Prasad Agarwal died and his legal representatives, brought on record of respondents no.1/1 to 1/3, moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking amendment in the application stating therein that the suit shop was required for their business after the death of the respondent no.1 and hence, consequential amendment be permitted. The application has been allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 11.03.2022, subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since, need of only respondent no.1 was pleaded in the original application, after his expiry, the same has come to an end and the respondents no.1/1 to 1/3 could not have been permitted to incorporate their necessity in the suit shop by way of an amendment. He submits that the application has been allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal only on the premise that after death of the respondent no.1, his legal representatives are required to be heard in the matter. He submits that while passing the order impugned, learned Tribunal did not appreciate that the amendment would change nature of the litigation. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order dated 11.03.2022 be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. A perusal of the Original Application reveals that requirement of the suit shop was pleaded for both the applicants and not for the applicant no.1 only. During its pendency, the applicant no.1 expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record who have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking incorporation of their necessity also by way of an amendment in the Original Application which, in the considered view of this Court, learned Tribunal did not err in allowing being a subsequent event. Although, reasonable and bonafide necessity pleaded in the application has to be considered on the basis of position obtaining on the day it was instituted but, it is also a well settled legal principle that a subsequent event having material bearing on the issue, can be permitted to be incorporated by way of an amendment. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it would change nature of the litigation is misplaced. The nature of the Original Application would still be for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity of the applicants. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Rajinder Singh v. Respondent: Satinder Kaur and Ors.: Manu/PH/3370/2014, involving identical controversy, held as under:

"5. Death is an event which is not in the control of anyone. To say that ground of personal necessity was individualistic in its tone and tenor and was only for the landlord in his individual capacity, is not correct. This ground of ejectment against the petitioner-tenant also enures for the benefit of his widow. However, the petitioner will have to establish existence of such personal necessity in the background of facts and milieu concerning her in the contemporaneous circumstances. In any case, allowing of the application for amendment of the petition ipso facto is no proof o