Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
KULDIP SINGH, J
Darshan Kumar Wahi — Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sneh Kuthiala — Respondent
C.R. No's. 61 and 63 of 2011
Decided on : 03-06-2011
Rent Controller - Ejectment Petition - H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14 - Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC - Dr. S.C. Jain v. Shrimati Sushila Devi 1973 ILR (HP) 1238, Smt. Surinder Kaur v. Sh. Mohinder Bahadur Singh 1979 (2) RLR 345, Gurnam Singh v. Roshan Lal 2009 (1) RLR 105, North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das 2008 (3) ICC 612 (SC), Peethani Suryanarayana and Anr. v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Ors. (2009 (2) ICC 1 (SC), Bollepanda P. Poonacha and Anr. v.K.M. Madapa 2008 (2) CCC 138 (SC), Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamd and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1147, Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) and Ors. 2007 (2) RLR 379 (SC), Inder Pal Thakur v. Hukam Chand and Anr. 1997 (3) SLC 358, Vidya Bhai and Ors. v. Padam Lata and Anr. (2009) 1 RCR 120 (SC), Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Anr. v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 1, Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, (2002) 9 JT 387 - The court discussed the applicability of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC in rent proceedings, the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, and the relevance of due diligence in seeking amendments. The court also considered the interpretation of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and its requirements for eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed applications for amendment of reply under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC in response to ejectment petitions filed by the landlord under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The applications were dismissed by the Rent Controller, leading to the tenants' challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the principles of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC are applicable in rent proceedings, and due diligence is necessary for seeking amendments. The court also found that the requirements for eviction under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 were considered in light of the evidence and submissions.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC in rent proceedings, the necessity of due diligence for seeking amendments, and the requirements for eviction under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC are applicable in rent proceedings, and due diligence is necessary for seeking amendments. The court also emphasized that the requirements for eviction under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 must be satisfied based on the evidence and submissions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the dismissal of the amendment applications, directing the parties to appear before the Rent Controller for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Kuldip Singh, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 61 of 2011 and Civil Revision No. 63 of 2011 in view of similarity of points involved in both the petitions.
C.R. No. 61 of 2011:
2. The order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller (1), Shimla in Case No. 43-2 of 2008 rejecting the application of Petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been assailed by the Petitioner who is a tenant.
3. The brief facts are that Respondent had filed a petition against the Petitioner u/s 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short 'Act') for ejectment on the grounds that the premises has become unsafe for human habitation, premises is required bonafide for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated, the Petitioner has committed such acts which have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The Petitioner has contested the petition by filing reply. The Respondent has already led evidence. The petition was fixed for the evidence of the Petitioner. In the meantime, the Petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC for amendment of reply and raising preliminary objection No. 4. The Respondent contested the petition. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on 6.4.2011.
4. The order dated 6.4.2011 has been assailed on the grounds that the learned Rent Controller has exercised jurisdiction wrongly, illegally and with material irregularity in not allowing the amendments. The learned Rent Controller has given findings on the merits of the amendments which is not permissible in law. The truth or falsity of the amendment is not to be seen at the time of consideration of the amendment application. The amendment sought is necessary in order to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. The application filed by the Petitioner was bonafide.
5. The due diligence is to be seen from the averments made in the application. The principles of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC are not strictly applicable to rent proceedings. In case it is proved that all the buildings form a compact unit, the premises in occupation of the Petitioner cannot be re-constructed unless all the owners give consent to it. The learned Rent Controller has wrongly observed that the averments sought to be introduced by way of amendment had already been taken by the Petitioner.
6. The learned Rent Controller has wrongly granted last opportunity to the Petitioner for producing his evidence ignoring the fact that application was filed on 15.3.2011 and reply to the application was filed on 21.3.2011 and the application was decided on 6.4.2011. It has been lastly submitted that the entire approach of the learned Rent Controller in dismissing the application is wrong, illegal and not sustainable.
C.R. No. 63 of 2011:
7. The order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller (1), Shimla in Case No. 42-2 of 2008 rejecting the application of Petitioner and proforma Respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been assailed by the tenant almost on the similar grounds as taken in C.R. No. 61 of 2011.
8. I have heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner(s) in both the petitions and Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate representing Smt. Sneh Kuthiala in both the petitions and have also gone through the record. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller has primarily dismissed the amendment application on the grounds that averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment have already been taken by the tenant in the unamended reply. The Petitioner has not shown due diligence for not taking the pleas earlier before the commencement of trial. The amendment application is nothing but delaying tactics of Petitioner. It has been submitted that amendments sought are necessary in order to adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. The Order 6 Rule 17 Code of CPC is not s
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
