Shri Vinod Luthra vs Smt Sarita Handa
2014 Latest Caselaw 3774 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               CM(M) 224/2014 & C.M.Nos.3930-3931/2014

%                                                     19th AUGUST, 2014

SHRI VINOD LUTHRA                                               ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate.



                          VERSUS


SMT SARITA HANDA                                               ...... Respondent

                          Through:       None

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

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

CM(M) No.224/2014 page 1 of 5 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

CM(M) No.224/2014 page 2 of 5 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

CM(M) No.224/2014 page 3 of 5 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.

CM(M) No.224/2014 page 4 of 5

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




CM(M) No.224/2014                                                  page 5 of 5