IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR NARAIN
HET RAM KANODIA - Appellant
Versus
10th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KANPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 47636 Of 1993
Decided On : 01/24/1994
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - GROUNDS FOR EVICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 20(2) - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 111 - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 13(1) - BOMBAY RENT ACT - SECTION 12 - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1946 - SECTION 13(1) - ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR EVICTION CAN BE ADDED BY AMENDMENT OF PLAINT IF IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on the ground of subletting and alteration of the tenanted accommodation. The defendant opposed the amendment application, arguing that it introduced a new cause of action and changed the nature of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment application did not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the suit, as the additional grounds were merely added to support the same relief of eviction. The court also noted that the defendant's rights would not be affected by the amendment as no right had accrued to him by lapse of time.
Issues: Whether the amendment application introduced a new cause of action and changed the nature of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to establish that additional grounds for eviction can be added by amendment of the plaint if it does not change the nature of the suit. The court held that the grounds for eviction mentioned under the Rent Control Statute do not constitute a necessary part of the cause of action for eviction of a tenant from an accommodation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the lower court that allowed the amendment of the plaint.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28/08/1991 passed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 2) allowing the amendment application filed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 6/08/1993 passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the said order in revision.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 751 of 1980 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Kanpur Nagar against respondents No. 4 to 10 and the petitioner on the allegation that the disputed accommodation was under the tenancy of the Purhwal Mills Co. Ltd. which was taken over by the U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (respondent No. 4 ). The defendants No. 1 to 4 in the suit illegality and without the consent and permission of the plaintiff sublet the accommodation to defendant Nos. 5 to 8. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 7 in the Suit.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the Suit the plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint. It was stated that the petitioner illegally sublet the accommodation to Sri Shiv Kumar Awasthi, Sri Umashankar Mishra and Sri Ramkishan Kanodia and has also made substantial and material alteration and addition to the premises in question and thereby reduced its value. He sought to add Paras 10b and 10c in the plaint. The amendment application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the allegation contained in the amendment application were false. He had not sublet any portion to any one nor made any material alteration in the tenanted accommodation. The amendment sought will change the nature of the Suit and will introduce new cause of action. This Judge Small Causes Court allowed the application and the order was affirmed in revision.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that if such new cause of action is permitted to be added in the suit it will amount to introducing a new case which was not the basis of the Suit at the time of filing of the plaint. The expression cause of action was considered in the case of A. K. Gupta and Sons v. Damodar Valley-Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96, and it was held that every material fact does not constitute a part of cause of action. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :-"the expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in Cooke v. Gill, (1873) 8 CP 107 (116), in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v. Unicos Property Corporation Ltd. , (1962) 2 All ER 24 and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words "new case" have been understood to mean "new set of ideas". Dornan v. J. W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. , (1962) 1 All ER 303. This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by, lapse of time. "
( 5 ) IN a Suit for eviction against tenant the cause of action is termination of relationship of landlord and tenant. So long there is a relationship of landlord and tenant either under the contract or under the Statute the tenant cannot be evicted, under the Transfer of Property Act the relationship of landlord and tenant shall come to an end by termination to tenancy by a notice to quit, by efflux of time, by forfeiture etc. In Smt. Abnash Kaur v. Dr. Avinash Nayyar, AIR 1975 Delhi 46 (FB), the Court observed:-"the cause of action in a suit for the eviction of a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act would be the existence of the relationship of a landlord and a tenant which has been brought to an end by the termination of ten
REFERRED TO : M/s. Tara Properties Private Ltd. v. M/s. Allied Resins and Chemicals Ltd.
Smt. Abnash Kaur v. Dr. Avinash Nayyar
Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board, Bareilly.
Zainab Bai v. Navayug Chitrapat Co. Ltd.
Robinson v. Unicos Property Corporation Ltd.
Haripada Das v. Sristidhan Chakrobarty
Bhanu Prakash Agarwal v. Munna Lal
Jitendra Nath Das v. K. K. Banerji
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.