Back
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Dr Prannath Bambani – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Das Goyal – Respondent
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 par
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.
The reasonable and bona fide necessity for rent eviction has to be adjudged based on the position existing on the day the application is filed, and subsequent events may not warrant an amendment in t....
The necessity for eviction must be assessed at the time of the application, and not all subsequent events justify amendments to pleadings.
Reasonable and bonafide necessity of a landlord has to be seen on the date of the institution of the suit, and subsequent events can be taken into consideration if they have a material bearing on the....
The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be rejected if it's belated and lacks due diligence, especially when it does not materially impact the bona fide requirement.
Amendments to pleadings in appellate proceedings must be timely and bona fide, and should not prejudice the other party.
The landlord's bona fide need at the time of filing the suit continues even after the sale of the property to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings.
The landlord is the best judge of his need and the court cannot advise the landlord to compromise his necessity for the benefit of the tenant.
The landlord's bonafide necessity for business expansion can justify an eviction order, and the tenant's objections must be supported by evidence to rebut the landlord's case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
