SAKTI KUMAR SAHA Vs. BRIJ BEHARI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is apparent that the landlord was beleaguered with the procedural hazzles and is unable to get decree for eviction against the monthly tenant in a suit filed in the year 1991 on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. More than 25 years have elapsed yet the suit has not reached to its logical end. The requirement pleaded at the time of institution of the suit altered and altered considerably and, therefore, there is no difficulty in bringing the subsequent events or subsequent changed circumstances in the pleading by way of an amendment.

(2.) Having enquired the reason for prolongation of the said suit, this Court was shocked that the trial court was reluctant to take up the said suit and was adjourning the matter on each day of listing and the Commissioner so appointed took several years to submit the report. It is really a matter of regret that a landlord is unable to get possession of his property by evicting the monthly tenant and the requirement which existed at the time of presentation of plaint has eloped and/or elapsed by passage of time. Naturally, the new requirements become evident and the landlord intends to achieve the same goal on the changed and new requirements. The Court should seldom decline such amendment to be brought in the pleading necessitated by subsequent events. The learned Judge of the trial court without sensing and/or realizing the pendency of the matter was more swayed by the fact that since the matter is pending since last 25 years why such facts have cropped up now. The life is not static, it is moving every seconds changing the positions, situations and status so also the requirement. A litigant should not be penalized as his suit is pending since last 25 years and it is a high time when the Judicial Officers must ponder upon to render justice to such long awaited litigation. The Judicial Officers should be sensitized in this regard so that the reason assigned in the impugned order may not be repeated in future.

(3.) Reverting back to the merit of the matter, admittedly the suit for eviction was filed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. There is no fetter in law if the requirement changes by passage of time either enhancing or decreasing.