Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 390

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Mahboob Saifi – Petitioners
Versus
Vimal Kumar Jain – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 3264 of 2026
Decided On : 30-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Jai Kishan, Vipin Kumar
For the Respondents: Aarushi Birla, Utkarsh Birla.

The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be rejected if it's belated and lacks due diligence, especially when it does not materially impact the bona fide requirement.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 - Rent control - Amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC rejected - Belated application lacking necessity for effective adjudication of bona fide need - Need must persist till final adjudication - Subsequent events considered only if clear and decisive. (Paras 20, 44.1-44.7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought to amend the written statement citing subsequent events affecting the plea of bona fide need asserted by the landlord who required the premises for his son’s business. The appellate court dismissed the amendment application, stating it was belated and unsubstantiated. (Paras 3, 7, 39)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court rightly exercised discretion in rejecting the amendment application, as it lacked necessary diligence and did not uphold the real controversy. (Paras 57, 60)

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment, and the significance of alleged subsequent events on the bona fide requirement. (Paras 21, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: Amendments after trial commencement require demonstration of due diligence; rejection can follow if subsequent events do not decisively impact bona fide needs. (Paras 24, 29, 44.1)

Result: Petition dismissed, order of the appellate court affirmed.

Table of Content
1. background facts of tenant-landlord dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner seeks amendment based on new tenant. (Para 7 , 8)
3. petitioner argues for necessity of amendment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18)
4. respondent opposes amendment citing delay. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19)
5. court examines legality of amendment rejection. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. court outlines principles on subsequent events. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. court remarks on due diligence required for amendments. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 45)
8. judgment affirms rejection of amendment. (Para 57)
9. final ruling dismissing the petition and affirming order. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Jai Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Utkarsh Birla and Ms Aarushi Birla, for the respondent.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–tenant assailing the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasganj in Rent Appeal No.16 of 2023, whereby the amendment application preferred by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

3. The facts, as borne out from the pleadings on record, indicate that the petitioner–tenant was inducted into the disputed shop situated at Mohalla Nathuram, Laxmiganj, Kasganj in the year 1983 by the father of the respondent–landlord on a monthly rent of Rs.1510/-. Since then, the1510/-. Since then, the petitioner has been carrying on the business of welding and iron work from the said premises and claims to have regularly paid rent.

4. The respondent–landlord, asserting his ownership over the premises, instituted P.A. Case No.05 of 2019 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop on the ground of bona fide requirement, namely, for establishing his son in an independent business.

5. It is further pleaded by the respondent that the disputed shop is old and in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction along with an adjoining portion so as to facilitate a suitable commercial establishment for his son. The petitioner, however, contested the release application by disputing the alleged bona fide need and asserting that the respondent’s son was already engaged in gainful employment/business and that the shop in question was neither dilapidated nor required for the purpose stated.

6. The record further discloses that the Prescribed Authority, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the release application vide judgment dated 31.07.2023, holding that the bona fide need of the landlord stood established and that the comparative hardship tilted in his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2023 before the District Judge, Kasganj.

7. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement on the basis of certain alleged subsequent events. The principal ground taken was that the respondent had, in the meantime, let out an adjoining shop to one Sunny Qureshi for carrying on a similar business, which, according to the petitioner, negated and extinguished the plea of bona fide requirement. The petitioner also sought to incorporate allegations regarding damage to the shop and obstruction in effecting repairs.

8. The respondent opposed the amendment application by filing objections supported by affidavits, denying the existence of any such tenancy and asserting that the adjoining portion continued to remain in his possession for the purpose of reconstruction. It was further contended that the proposed amendment was belated, factually incorrect, and intended only to protract the proceedings.

9. The appellate court, upon consideration of the rival submissions, rejected the amendment application vide order dated 22.01.2026, holding that the proposed amendm