Eviction--Personal necessity--Amendment of pleading--Subsequent events in regard to the changed need of requirement of this premises for the son of the petitioner can certainly be taken into consideration.
Eviction--Personal necessity--Principle of res judicata does not strictly apply to filing of another eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. The order impugned in the present revision petition is the one whereby prayer for amendment of the pleadings made by respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands allowed.

2. Respondent Dewan Chand and Anr. filed a petition under Section 13(3)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for eviction of tenant from their shop on the ground of bona fide necessity. The case set up by the petitioner was that husband and wife needed this shop for running their own business. On the basis of the pleadings, one of the issue that was framed was:

whether the petitioners require the demised shop for their use and occupation for business? OPA

This petition was instituted on 3.2.2000. In January, 2007 the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking amendment to the effect that youngest son of the petitioners, namely, Jaspal was an employee of M/s Khahna Book Depot and has started his business as a book seller and stationery after taking a shop on rent from one Harjinder Singh and joined Narinder Kumar, his elder brother as his assistant, Narinder Kumar wanted to set up his own business in the shop in question. He is of a marriageable age and thus the petitioner would require the shop in dispute from abovesaid Jaspal Singh for his separate business in the shop.

3 Terming this amendment to be necessary for proper adjudication of the case, the prayer for amendment was pressed. The trial Court after obtaining reply from the petitioner allowed the amendment basically on the ground that proposed amendment appears to be necessary for decision of this suit and to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The said order is now impugned through the present revision petition.

4. Mr. Arun Palli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would urge that any amendment which is just and necessary for the purpose of determining real question in controversy can only be allowed and any amendment, which results in changing the entire cause would be beyond the purview of Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, 1908. According to the counsel, the earlier case set up by the respondents has entirely been discarded and altogether a new case is now set up on account of the need of their son, which amount to substituting the earlier cause and as such would not be permissible to be introduced by way of amendment. When specifically asked, the learned Counsel very fairly answered that the respondents may be entitled to file a separate petition seeking eviction on this ground, but still maintained that amendment as allowed was beyond the purview of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

5. Mr. R.K. Battas representing the respondents, however, would challenge the very maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that order allowing the amendment would not occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury. In support the counsel would refer to observations of the Honble Supreme Court made in the case of Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Dev and Ors., where it is held that it is almost inconceivable that an order permitting amendment of pleadings would cause justice or irreparable injury to any party. Honble Supreme Court, in this case, has further held that refusal to allow such amendment may on the other hand in certain circumstances result in miscarriage of Justice. Mr. Battas would also refer to the case of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr., where it is observed that when the cause of action arises during the pendency of a suit and only nature of relief sought to be changed while basic structure of the suit remaining unchanged, the amendment can be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of a suit. This observation is made to the view taken by the court below that it was open for the plaintiff to file a fresh, suit seeking the relief sought. In this background, it is held that in order to avoid multiplicity of the suit, amendment should be allowed. Reference is also made