Legal representatives of a deceased landlord can amend eviction applications to include their necessity, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provided no injustice is caused to the other party.

Order :

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.)

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, “learned Rent Tribunal”) in rent application No.688/2015 whereby, an application filed by the respondents/applicants (for brevity, “applicants”) under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC and read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, “the Act of 2001”), has been allowed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that Sabeela Khatoon-predecessor-in-interest of the applicants, filed an application against the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant (for brevity, “non- applicant”) under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 seeking eviction from the suit premises on the grounds, inter alia, her reasonable and bona fide necessity. During its pendency, she expired whereupon, her legal representatives were taken on record. After their impleadment, they filed an application as aforesaid which came to be allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order impugned dated 30.11.2019.

3. At the threshold, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not press their application except to the extent the amendment pertains to their reasonable and bona fide necessity for the suit premises.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the order is non-speaking one inasmuch as it does not assign any reason for allowing the application. He further submits that although, issues were framed on 05.08.2004, Sabeela Khatun had expired way back in the year 2009, the applicants had filed the application as late as in the month of August, 2009 and therefore, is hit by the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. He, in support of his submissions relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma and Others: 2019 SCC 332. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 30.11.2019 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the applicants be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants submits that although, Sabeela Khatoon had expired in the year 2009 but, after allowing their application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, the amended cause title was taken on record vide order dated 25.09.2018 and therefore, there was no delay on their part in filing the subject application. He submits that evidence of the parties was yet to begin when the application was allowed. Learned counsel further submits that since, in the rent application, the reasonable and bona fide need only of Sabeela Khatoon was pleaded and the need of the premises for her family continued even after her death, the amendment was necessitated. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kedar Nath Methi vs. Mitthal: 2009(1) WLC Rajasthan 400. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. The application filed by the applicants seeking amendment in the memo of the original application was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2019 on the premise that the amendment appeared to be relevant for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter and evidence of the parties was yet to begin. As already observed, learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed their application qua other amendments except the amendment pertaining to the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity. Indisputably, after framing of the issues and before the evidence could begin, the applicant- Sabeela Khatoon has expired. In the rent application filed by her, only her reasonable and bona fide necessity was pleaded. After her death, the applicants came to be impleaded as her legal representatives and they sought to introduce, by way of amendment, their reasonable and bona fide necessity for the rented premises. Indisputably, they could bring