SUNDER Vs. RAMSAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIKE boxers in a ring, this is the fifth round of boxing between the landlord and the tenant. The fight is continuing not because of the fighters themselves, but because the trial court has failed to follow the directions issued by the first appellate Court and by this Court. Needlessly, the litigant are suffering the endless judicial voyage for the last thirty- five years. The landlord is still hoping for getting the tenant vacated from his premises; the tenant is enjoying the fruits of judicial lethargy. This fight must end now.

(2.) WAY back in 1971, the landlord, the respondent before this court, had filed a suit for eviction on the grounds of bona fide necessity, nuisance, change of user, and default in the payment of rent. However, the trial court dismissed the said suit vide its order dated 2. 12. 1974. Therefore, the landlord filed an appeal before the first appellate court. Along with the appeal, he also filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as `the Code', for shorti ). The landlord pleaded that he should be permitted to amend the suit and to state that the tenant had already taken the benefit of the first default. Therefore, the benefit of the second default cannot be taken by the tenant. The landlord also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code, for bringing the document on record showing that in an earlier suit, the tenant had taken benefit of the first default. Vide Order dated 22. 8. 1978, the learned appellate court dismissed the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code and held that the question of second default and benefit of Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (henceforth to be referred to as `the Rent Control Act', for short) could be considered without any amendment. However, it did allow the application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code and took the documents, namely Order dated 27. 10. 65 and 30. 11. 65 showing the first default by the tenant. Further, vide Order dated 27. 2. 1980, the landlord's appeal was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial court. The first appellate court directed the trial Court to frame an issue about the comparative hardship of the parties.

(3.) WE have heard both the learned counsels and have perused the impugned order.