S SOMASHANKARAPPA Vs. SHAH MISRIMAL INDRAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord ; he sought eviction of the respondent tinder Sec. 21(1)(b), (h) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act, for short), in the year 1980. In the year 1988, he filed I.A. No. IV in the trial court seeking the amendment of the main application, by introducing a new ground under Sec. 21(1)(p) of the Act.

(2.) The trial court rejected the application holding that the alleged acquisition of two premises by the tenant was in the name of his two sons and that the petitioner nowhere contended that the respondent and his sons constitute a Hindu undivided family. Trial court, further held that those two premises were not vacant and were not available to the respondent to be occupied at the time when the petitioner filed eviction case against him. Thus the substantial reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of the eviction petition, was on the merits of the new ground; in the course of its order, trial court refers to the citation of the decision of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v Lal Pancham (AIR 1965 SC 1008).

(3.) In the aforesaid decision, Supreme Court held that where the plaintiffs are making out a case of fraud for which there was not the slightest basis in the original plaint, amendment of plaint should not be permitted; a new case should not be permitted to be made out, by the amendment.