Vinod Luthra v. Sarita Handa

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 02.1.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent/landlord for amendment of the bonafide necessity petition. By the amendment, the respondent/landlord sought to substitute the expression “intends to be based at Delhi” instead of the expression “based at Delhi” which was found in the 2014:DHC:3951 eviction petition as regards the business of the daughter Shweta and for whose requirement the bonafide necessity petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2. The application of amendment which has been allowed was filed at the stage of pleadings i.e evidence in the case had yet not been commenced.

3. The case as regards the amendment prayed has a sight history in that the leave to defend was denied by the Additional Rent Controller by the order dated 23.4.2012 but was granted by this Court in a Rent Control Revision Petition no.413/2012 by observing that the respondent/landlord was not taking up a clear-cut stand of the daughter Ms. Shweta as to whether she is based at Phagwara or is based at Delhi. It is because of this inconsistency as found that the leave to defend was granted taking into account the stand of the petitioner/tenant that the daughter Shweta was in fact working in Phagwara and not in Delhi.

4. It is settled law that by allowing an amendment application, it is not as if the amended case pleaded is taken as correct. The case as set up in the pleading will necessarily have to be proved during the trial. If the amendment which is prayed for can be allowed as not being barred by limitation when the amendment application is filed, amendments are ordinarily allowed to be made in the plaint/petition. Since this is a bonafide necessity petition, hence there is no limitation for filing of a bonafide necessity petition, and therefore even if a new case is allegedly being set up that would not mean that the amendment should not be allowed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that a malafide amendment should not be allowed and for which purpose, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors., VII (2009) SLT 537, however, there is no dispute as to the proposition of law, but in the present case there is no malafides inasmuch as the petition for eviction being a bonafide necessity petition, a landlord can always add all facts on the basis of which he can seek eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity and even if there is a new case which is brought by the proposed amendment, there is no bar in law to allow addition of such new facts necessary to dispose/decide a bonafide necessity petition.

6. In fact as stated above, no doubt the petition of the respondent/landlord had stated that the daughter was based in Delhi, however, during the proceedings of the leave to defend, it transpired that contradictory pleas were taken on account of the daughter “intending to be based in Delhi” and “is being based in Delhi” i.e leave to defend was granted on the basis of ambiguous nature of the pleadings of the daughter not being based at Delhi and being based at Phagwara. Therefore, the amendment which was sought and allowed, in fact only clears the confusion, and at best as stated above amounts to adding of relevant facts in a bonafide necessity petition which is surely permissible because there is no limitation with respect to filing of a bonafide necessity petition.

7. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are powers which are exercised in extraordinary situations and to further meet the end of justice. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not to be invoked and exercised as routine matters, more so when no injustice is caused by the impugned order. In the present case, I do not find any injustice whatsoever caused by the impugned order because the petitioner/tenant will have an ample opportunity during the trial to defend the case and prove the case as set up by the respondent/landlord as incorrect. The present petition in fact lacks bonafides because the endeavour is to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the main case.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Costs will be paid to the respondent/landlord within a period of four weeks.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 19, 2014 KA