JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—In these two revision applications the question which arises for consideration is whether the court committed a material irregularity within the meaning of sec. 115(c) in allowing an amendment of the plaint long after the institution of the suit so as to include a cause of action which had not accrued to the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suits.

2. Civil Revision No. 469 of 1967 arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff on 24-1-66 on the ground of sub-letting and personal necessity. On 3-4-67 the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to include another ground for eviction which was not available to him when the suit was filed. The tenancy of the defendant is a monthly one commencing from the 25th of the English calendar month. In his amendment application the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had paid rent upto 24-11-65, but neither paid nor tendered it thereafter so that on 25-5-66 i.e., after the institution of the present suit he has become entitled to evict the defendant on the ground set forth in sec. 13(l)(a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1950 as amended by Act No. 12 of 1965 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 9-6-65. This application was opposed by the defendant on various grounds. It was asserted that the defendant had tendered rent to the plaintiff, but he had refused to accept it. On 3-5-67 he made a deposit of the rent due upto 24-4-67 under sec. 19-A. It was contended that a cause of action which had not accrued to the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suit could not be added by way of amendment. The trial court however allowed the amendment by the following order :

"After careful consideration of legal implication I allow this application for amending the plaint. If the plaintiff cannot succeed on account of subsequent defaults, that will be seen only during the trial of the said case and not in this application for amendment".

3. In Civil Revision No. 1 52 of 1968 the present suit was instituted on 8-7 60 for the eviction of the defendant from a shop on the ground of personal necessity. Issues were framed on 9-2-61 and the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was recorded by 7-2-62. On 13-4-67 the statement of the defendant was recorded and his evidence was going on when an application for amendment of the plaint was made on 19-12-67. It was alleged in this application that the defendant had paid rent upto 30-9-62 but had not paid rent thereafter and on account of his faillure to pay the rent after 30-9-62 he had become liable to ejectment on the ground menntioned in sec. 13(l)(a). A prayer was made to allow an amendment of the plaint so as to add this ground of eviction which had accrued to the plaintiff after the institution of the suit. The plaintiff instituted a separate suit for the recovery arrears of rent from the defendant from 1-10-62 to 31-12-55 which is pending, but in that suit no prayer for eviction on the ground of default was made.

4. The application for amendment was opposed on the ground that the plaint could not be amended so as to include a cause of action which had not accrued to the plaintiff on the date of the suit. It was asserted that the General Watch Co. was the tenant and not the defendant and that rent had been tendered in the name of General Watch Co. but the plaintiff had refused to accept it. The learned Additional Munsiff No. 2 Jaipur allowed the amendment without giving any reasons.

5. The contention on behalf of the applicants in these two revision applications is that the court has no power either under sec. 153 or O.6 r.17 C.P.C. to allow an amendment of the plaint so as to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit. These two provisions of law are reproduced below :

"Sec. 153.—The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it rnay think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document