BAL KRISHAN Vs. BHIM SAIN ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application for amendment of the petition to bring to the notice of the court a subsequent event of the landlord obtaining eviction of two Other shops was rejected on the ground that it was belated and application for amendment after the trial has commenced is barred by a new disposition by amendment to the Civil Procedure code under Order 6, Rule 17 and therefore, the petition for amendment could not be allowed.

(2.) THE entire body of case law making subsequent events as relevant has come only through the branch of rent laws. Especially, in a case where the landlord seeks eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement, such requirement shall be shown to exist not merely at the time of filing of the petition but should subsist through the stage of trial and ultimately till the conclusion of proceedings. A subsequent event may not always be decisive but it shall be relevant.

(3.) ALL the decisions have a bearing to the court's approach where amendment in pleadings stall further proceedings and that the delays should always be avoided they must be seen in the context of whether the party who seeks for amendment has been guilty of laches or the amendment was brought merely to secure delay in the trial. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent event took place in 2008 and the amendment was sought soon thereafter. It is significant that the landlord did not himself deny the subsequent event of his gaining possession of two other shops subsequent to the filing of the petition but he would explain that his need still persisted by the fact that the properties that have been vacated could not be properly enjoyed without obtaining eviction of the demised premises. This was essentially a matter of evidence and the observation of the Rent Controller that the case would be considered on the respective contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondent is, in my view, not correct. Matters of evidence, which have to stand the test on cross-examination cannot be substituted by mere averments in the affidavit. The application for amendment, if it is allowed cannot mean allowing the tenant to steal a march over the landlord's contention as apprehended by the counsel for the landlord. On the other hand, it affords to him an equal opportunity to explain as to how the subsequent event does not deflect from the need, which he has espoused in the petition.