Amendments to pleadings regarding bona fide necessity must be timely and relevant, and subsequent events do not negate the landlord's bona fide need for the premises.

ORDER

1. By these two writ petitions, the petitioner-tenant has assailed the order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal whereby applications moved by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 41 Rule 17 CPC were dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as he had learnt that the landlord non-petitioner had purchased the property which he was using as a tenant earlier, by a registered sale deed on 06.08.2019 and 27.08.2019, he sought prayer for amending his written statement in order to show that the personal bona fide necessity of the landlord has been distinguished as he is now the owner of the rented premises and he does not require the present premises for doing his business. Learned counsel submits that the amendment was necessary as it was in relation to the subsequent events and the Appellate Tribunal has wrongly rejected his application by going into the merits of the amendment application.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord-non-petitioner submits that even if the amendment as sought would have been considered, the Appellate Tribunal has examined the prayer made by the landlord for requirement of premises for extending his business. Thus, while part of the premises has been purchased of the earlier rented premises by the non-petitioner, it would not extinguish his bona fide necessity as he has requested for vacating his own premises for the purpose of extending his business. The Appellate Tribunal has noticed the prayer made by the petitioner and learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Chandra Shekher versus Bhanu Kumar reported in 2017 CJ(Rent Control) 172 and in the case of Rajendra Kumar & Anr. vs. Smt. Heera Devi & Ors. reported in 2019 CJ (Rent Control) 39 and also in the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani & Anr. versus Uttam Chand & Anr. reported in 2004 (8) SCC 490 in support of his submissions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh reported in AIR 2003 SC 624 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. versus K.K. Modi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the law as cited before this Court in Chandra Shekher (supra).

6. After considering the law as held in Pratap Rai Tanwani (supra) and after considering an earlier judgment passed by this Court reported in the case of Legal Representatives of Abdulla vs. Phyambda Sharma reported in 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 175 it was held as under:-

"Thus, upshot of the various decisions of the Apex Court and this court is that if the subsequent events sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings are of such nature that the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord stands completely eclipsed, then, only such amendment which is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue with regard to bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord can be allowed by the courts at any stage of the proceedings. That apart, such subsequent event must be brought to the notice of court by making an appropriate application promptly."

7. Similar view which was again reiterated in Rajendra Kumar (supra) is as under:-

'16. Thus, upshot of the various decisions of the Apex Court is that if the subsequent events sought to be brought on record by way of amendment of the pleadings are of such nature that the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord stands completely eclipsed, then such amendment which is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issue with regard to bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord may be allowed by the courts."

8. In the case of At ma S. Berar (supra), the Supreme Court has held as unders:-

'15. The learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were vitiated and the High Court was justified in interfering therewith especially in the light of the events wh