RAMESH KUMAR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral)

(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.05.2010 whereby the Rent Controller rejected the prayer of the petitioner to amend the eviction petition. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though Ramesh Kumar and Ravinder Kumar were already examined and in case the proposed amendment is allowed, it shall not amount to filling the lacuna. THE amendment has been necessitated due to the subsequent events i.e. death of the landlady. THErefore, this could not be perceived by the petitioner earlier. Hence amendment is justifiable. Grandmother of Ravinder Kumar, Smt. Sohagwati has filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-respondent on the ground that she required the premises for her own personal use and occupation as her grandson aged 22 years was out of employment and she intended to start business with the aid and help of her grandson. It was further pleaded that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and respondents were a source of nuisance and guilty of such acts and misconduct which have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, Sohagwati died and petitioner, who is her son, was impleaded as legal representative. THE applicant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to say that the premises were required for his son Ravinder Kumar whose necessity was already pleaded as he was unemployed and it was further stated that when he would retire from service in the year 2013, he would join his son in the business. THErefore, this fact was sought to be pleaded by way of amendment that the personal necessity of legal heirs is also made out. THE Rent Controller rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the case pertains to year 1996 and death of original petitioner ipso facto will not give the rights to the legal representatives to plead their case. It is not disputed that petitioner has succeeded to the shop in dispute on account of death of Sohagwati. Sohagwati had pleaded personal necessity of herself and of her grandson. Ramesh Kumar having stepped into the shoes of Sohagwati intended to bring to the notice of the Court that personal necessity pleaded for his son still persists and he will also join him after his retirement. To say that after the death of his mother personal necessity has obliterated will not be just. THErefore, amendment is necessary and essential for adjudication. Hence, present revision petition is accepted and application for amendment is allowed.