1983 Supreme(MP) 579

Chandra Pal Singh, J.
Sureshcbandra v. Gopichand.
C.R. No. 451 of 1981 (J); Decided on 13-12-1983.

Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6, R. 17 -- eviction suit -- new grounds of eviction cannot be allowed by way of amendment.

        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- suit for eviction -- title of landlord denied in written statement -- such denial cannot be added as one more ground of eviction by amendment.

        (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- S. 12(1)(c) -- eviction suit -- title of landlord dented in written statement -- no further ground on his count can be added by amendment.

        This Petition is directed against that part of the order of the Civil Judge Class I, Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 69-A of 1981, which has allowed the plaintiff respondent Gopichand to introduce in his plaint paragraph 4 (a) as part of the amendment under Order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

        2. Paragraph 4(a) runs as follows :--

       ^^;g fd izfroknh us vius oknksRrj esa oknh dks nkfo;k LFkku dk Lokeh gksuk ugha ekudj oknh ds ekfydkuk LoRoksa dks pqukSrh nh gS ftlls oknh ds fgr izHkkfor gq, gSaA vr% izfroknh ds bl d`R; ds ifj.kkeLo:i Hkh izfroknh nkfo;k LFkku ls fudkflr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS ,oa vkf/kiR; ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA**

       The background of this part of the amendment being allowed in short is as follows :-- The plaintiffs, suit against the defendant-petitioner Sureshchandra and his firm was for their ejectment from the premises let out, to them on the, ground of requiring those premises bonafide for his residence. The defendant among other defence took the defence that the plaintiff was not the owner of the premises. The plaintiff therefore, under Order 6 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code applied for amendments in his plaint, which the learned Civil Judge inspite of the objections by the defendant has allowed. The defendant Sureshchandra keeps himself confined to only that part of the amendments allowed which appears in paragraph 4(a) as already reproduced.

        Held : It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the ground for ejecting a tenant must exist at the time of filing of the suit by the plaintiff. For example, in Ratanlal v. Damodardas (1961 JLJ 5) a Division Bench of this Court. while interpreting similar provisions to the ones of contained in section 12 of the Act and construing particularly the words "no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds" had held that the ground of renunciation of the title by the tenant must exist at the time of the presentation of the suit. Reliance in that case was placed on Maharaja Jeypora v. Rukmani (AIR 1919 PC 1) it therefore follows that new ground for ejectment of the tenant from the premises under the Accommodation Control Act cannot be introduced merely because of the denial of certain allegations, particularly the denial of title by the defendant in his written statement.

        The revision petition, in consequence, is allowed. The order in question so far as it allows the plaintiff to amend his plaint by introducing facts contained in paragraph 4 (a) of his application is set aside. 1961 JLJ 5 and AIR 1919 PC 1 relied on. Revision allowed.