Whether subsequent facts that arise during the pendency of an eviction petition can be brought on record: Delhi Rent control Act

-

Summary of Judgment: Kashi Ram & Ors. vs. Anita Garg

Citation:

CM (M) 1376/2019, Date of Decision: 18th September 2019

Court:

High Court of Delhi

Judge:

Justice Prathiba M. Singh

Key Sections:

  • Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Bonafide requirement for eviction.
  • Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Amendment of pleadings.

Legal Position and Precedents:

  • Gurcharan Singh v. R.N. Chaudhary, (1982) 21 DLT 477: Allowed subsequent facts to support bonafide requirement.
  • Bhagwan Dass v. Usha Tyagi [CM(M) 1229/2019, decided on 23rd August, 2019]: Permitted bringing subsequent facts on record via affidavit without needing amendment.

Background:

  • Petitioners (Tenants): Kashi Ram and others.
  • Respondent (Landlady): Anita Garg.
  • Property: Commercial property, Shop No. 69B, Khan Market, New Delhi.
  • The landlady filed an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
  • During the evidence stage, the landlady sought to amend the petition to include subsequent facts, such as her son’s intention to join her business.

Issues:

  1. Whether subsequent facts that arise during the pendency of an eviction petition can be brought on record.
  2. Whether such inclusion constitutes a new cause of action.

Judgment:

  • The amendment to include subsequent facts was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) and upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal.
  • The High Court dismissed the tenant's petition against this order.

Reasoning:

  1. No New Cause of Action: The amendment did not create a fresh cause of action but supported the existing one. The landlady’s son’s intention to join the business strengthened her bonafide requirement claim.
  2. Subsequent Facts Are Relevant: The Court held that in rent control matters, subsequent facts relevant to the existing cause of action should be brought on record to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
  3. Adequate Notice: Adequate notice was given to the tenants about the amendment, ensuring they had the opportunity to rebut the new facts.
  4. No Prejudice to Tenants: Since the case was still at the evidence stage, no prejudice was caused to the tenants by allowing the amendment.

Legal Position:

  • The Court reiterated that subsequent developments relevant to the landlord’s requirement can be considered and included in the eviction petition.
  • The inclusion of subsequent facts does not necessarily require amending the written statement if they are brought on record through affidavits during evidence, as established in Bhagwan Dass v. Usha Tyagi.

Conclusion:

  • The petition was dismissed, and the Court directed the ARC to continue the recordal of evidence and expedite the disposal of the eviction petition.
  • This judgment underscores the permissibility of including subsequent facts in rent control cases to support existing claims without constituting new causes of action, ensuring procedural efficiency and substantive justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more