Anand Kishore Sachdeva vs Sanjay Agrawal
2022 Latest Caselaw 7680 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                 BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
                          ON THE 13th OF JUNE, 2022

                    MISC. PETITION No. 268 of 2022

        Between:-
        ANAND KISHORE SACHDEVA S/O LT RAMDHAN
        SACHDEVA , AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
        GURUDWARA SANTAR MURAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI KAMAL MANGAL, ADVOCATE )

        AND

        SANJAY AGRAWAL S/O LT RAMJIDAS
        AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, KALIMAI
        SANTAR MAAL RAOD MORAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENT
        (BY SHRI BALDEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04-01-2022 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.13-A of 2016, by which the application filed by the petitioner-defendant (tenant) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below has committed an error in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC which was filed by the petitioner under the changed

circu+mstances on the ground that the respondent- plaintiff had rented out another similar accommodation of his ownership to one Ravi Sales and the same was rejected by the Court below by observing that the aforesaid fact can be brought before the Court by adducing the evidence/ pleadings. It is further submitted that for proving the aforesaid fact on behalf of petitioner- tenant, the relevant pleadings are required to be be amended. In support of aforesaid contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh (2009) 10 SCC 626, Ravajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanswamy & Sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84, Rajesh Kumar

Aggarwal and Others vs. KK Modi and Others, 2006(3) MPLJ 215, Kashinath vs. Jaganath, MPWN 2004 (I) SN 95 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sudha Gupta (Smt.) & Others vs. State of MP and Others, 1999 (I) JLJ 14. Hence, it is prayed that the amendment application deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent since 1957 and the petitioner is in the habit of filing of various applications thereby adopting delaying tactics in the case. It is submitted that it is the prerogative of the landlord to select the proper accommodation as per his bona fide requirements. The landlord cannot be compelled by the tenant to select particular accommodation for his bona fide requirement. As petitioner filed an amendment application under Rule 6 Rule 17 of CPC with mala fide and baseless, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Perused the impugned order as well as the arguments advanced by

counsel for the parties.

On perusal of impugned order and documents available on record, it is apparent that the Court below by the impugned order has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC by observing that proposed amendment is the subject-matter of evidence and the same does not require to be adjudicated at this stage. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent- landlord since 1957. It is also settled principle of law that the tenant cannot compel the landlord to choose specific accommodation for his bona fide need. It is the prerogative of the landlord to select the proper accommodation as per his bona fide need.

The scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is possible. The High court should exercise this power sparingly when there is patent perversity in the order or where there is a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. Accordingly, no

interference is warranted in the matter in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, there is no illegality or perversity of approach in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petition being sans merits rather, appears to be mala fide on the part

of the petitioner of causing delay in trial, hence, it is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same shall be deposited by petitioner within a period of ten days in the Registry of this Court.

(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MKB

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.06.15 18:46:31 +05'30'