Janardan S/O Late Om Prakash vs Govind Prasad Agarwal S/O Late ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3841 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6270/2022

1.       Janardan S/o Late Om Prakash,
2.       Somnath S/o Late Om Prakash,
         Both Tenant Shop No. 261, Janta Timbers, Nahargarh
         Road, Jaipur.
                                               ----Petitioners/Non-Applicants
                                      Versus
1.       Govind Prasad Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ramgopal Gudia,
         (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs-
1/1.     Priya Agarwal D/o Late Shri Govind Prasad Agarwal,
1/2.     Shruti Agarwal D/o Late Shri Govind Prasad Agarwal,
1/3.     Shubham Agarwal S/o Late Shri Govind Prasad Agarwal,
2.       Smt. Renu Bansal Wd/o Late Shri Govind Prasad Agarwal,
         All R/o House No. 210, Maliram, Dargoa Ki Gali, Purani
         Basti, Nahargarh Road Jaipur.
3.       Durga Prasad Sharma S/o Late Om Prakash, R/o 4831,
         KGB Ka Rasta, Third Crossing, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Since
         Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs:
3/1.     Virendra Sharma S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad,
3/2.     Devendra Sharma S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad,
3/3.     Sheetal Sharma S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad,
3/4.     Madhu Sharma D/o Late Shri Durga Prasad,
         All R/o 4831, KGB Ka Rasta, Third Crossing, Johari Bazar,
         Jaipur.
                              ----Performa Respondents/Non-Applicants

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

16/05/2022 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order

(2 of 5) [CW-6270/2022]

dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal No.2,

Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby, an application filed by the

respondents-applicants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with

Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity,

'the Act of 2001') seeking amendment in the Original Application,

has been allowed.

The facts in brief are that late Govind Prasad Agarwal, father

of the respondents no.1/1 to 1/3 and Smt. Renu filed an Original

Application seeking eviction of the petitioners/non-applicants from

the suit shop on the ground interalia, of their reasonable and

bonafide necessity. During its pendency, the applicant no.1, Shri

Govind Prasad Agarwal died and his legal representatives, brought

on record of respondents no.1/1 to 1/3, moved an application

under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 21 of the Act of 2001

seeking amendment in the application stating therein that the suit

shop was required for their business after the death of the

respondent no.1 and hence, consequential amendment be

permitted. The application has been allowed by the learned Rent

Tribunal vide its order dated 11.03.2022, subject matter of

challenge in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since,

need of only respondent no.1 was pleaded in the original

application, after his expiry, the same has come to an end and the

respondents no.1/1 to 1/3 could not have been permitted to

incorporate their necessity in the suit shop by way of an

amendment. He submits that the application has been allowed by

the learned Rent Tribunal only on the premise that after death of

the respondent no.1, his legal representatives are required to be

(3 of 5) [CW-6270/2022]

heard in the matter. He submits that while passing the order

impugned, learned Tribunal did not appreciate that the

amendment would change nature of the litigation. He, therefore,

prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order dated

11.03.2022 be quashed and set aside.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the Original Application reveals that requirement

of the suit shop was pleaded for both the applicants and not for

the applicant no.1 only. During its pendency, the applicant no.1

expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record who have

filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 21 of

the Act of 2001 seeking incorporation of their necessity also by

way of an amendment in the Original Application which, in the

considered view of this Court, learned Tribunal did not err in

allowing being a subsequent event. Although, reasonable and

bonafide necessity pleaded in the application has to be considered

on the basis of position obtaining on the day it was instituted but,

it is also a well settled legal principle that a subsequent event

having material bearing on the issue, can be permitted to be

incorporated by way of an amendment. Contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that it would change nature of the

litigation is misplaced. The nature of the Original Application would

still be for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide

necessity of the applicants. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High

Court in case of Rajinder Singh Vs. Respondent: Satinder

Kaur and Ors.: Manu/PH/3370/2014, involving identical

controversy, held as under:

(4 of 5) [CW-6270/2022]

"5. Death is an event which is not in the control of anyone. To say that ground of personal necessity was individualistic in its tone and tenor and was only for the landlord in his individual capacity, is not correct. This ground of ejectment against the petitioner-tenant also enures for the benefit of his widow. However, the petitioner will have to establish existence of such personal necessity in the background of facts and milieu concerning her in the contemporaneous circumstances. In any case, allowing of the application for amendment of the petition ipso facto is no proof of her personal requirement of the premises so as to order eviction which aspect is yet to be determined by the Rent Controller in the light of the evidence of the parties.

6. Perusal of the eviction petition (Annexure P-1) reveals that ground of personal necessity was pleaded for the family as running of the unit by him was for the whole family but due to his heart ailment he had not able to run the said unit. After recovery from his ailment, he had sought eviction of the premises to run the unit himself but unfortunately he had died during pendency of the petition. Authorities Raj Kumar Vij v. Hem Raj Singla and others, MANU/PH/1085/2007MANU/PH/1085/2007:(2008-

1) 149 P.L.R. 618 and Arun Vig v. Maya Guglani, MANU/PH/3167/2012MANU/PH/3167/2012: 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 274 cited by the petitioners, in peculiar circumstances of the case in hand, do not sustain the cause of the petitioners.

7. Rather there is judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as MANU/SC/0887/2004MANU/SC/0887/2004 : 2004 (8) S.C.C. 76 titled Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs, wherein it was held that where eviction is sought by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement and during the pendency of the application, the landlord dies, his legal representatives can prosecute such application on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. In yet another decision rendered on 4.8.2014 in CR No. 2618 of 2012 titled Ajit Singh Zakhmi v. Nirmal Jindal by this Court, it was held that ground of personal necessity on the death of respondent/landlord does not become redundant

(5 of 5) [CW-6270/2022]

and right, title or interest of the widow of the landlord on her impleadment in substitution of her husband/landlord requires to be determined.

8. In any case the impugned order does not prejudice the right, claim and interest of the tenant in the rent petition. He will have opportunity to file reply restricting to amendment sought in the petition and would also have on opportunity to cross examine the petitioner and her witnesses to be brought by her in support of her claim. He would also be have an opportunity to lead his independent evidence."

The application filed by the respondents-applicants has been

allowed by learned Rent Tribunal in its judicious discretion based

on cogent material on record which does not suffer from any

patent jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference of

this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

Resultantly, This writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

MADAN/60

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)