GHAN SHYAM Vs. D C KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the instant writ petition assailing the order dated 19.08.2003 (Annex.6) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhilwara, refusing the petitioner's application seeking amendment in the plaint for addition of the plea for fixation of standard rent at Rs. 60,000/- per month and for addition of new ground of eviction of his reasonable and bonafide requirement, remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission.

(2.) It appears that the suit in question for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent was filed way back in the year 1988. At the stage when the statement of DW-1 Anand Prakash was incomplete, the plaintiff-petitioner moved application (Annex.4) under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC on 17.01.2003 and suggested that the area in question was going to acquire enhanced commercial value for developmental activities and widening of roads; that the plaintiff was 61 years of age and for his future prospects and augmentation of income, wanted to build a commercial complex in place of the disputed premises; and that the defendants could get other premises for running their school. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants were enjoying the premises on a nominal rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month whereas the area in question has acquired importance from business point of view and the disputed premises being about 10952 square feet in area, its present rent was not less than Rs. 60,000/- per month and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to get the standard rent fixed at such rate. The plaintiff suggested that these were the subsequent events and prayed that such aspects may be permitted to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(3.) The defendant contested the application and after hearing the parties, the learned trial court has proceeded to reject the application with the observations that in the suit as originally filed no ground regarding bonafide requirement was taken; and even when he got the plaint amended in the year 1993, the plaintiff did not ask for such amendment regarding the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. The learned trial court was of opinion that when the suit has registered so much progress that the plaintiff's evidence has already been concluded and the defendant's statement was incomplete, permitting such amendment would only be relegating the suit to the initial stage that would result in abnormal delay. The learned trial court also observed that by allowing the pleadings regarding standard rent now, the very nature of the suit would be altered; and again referring to the fact that the suit was filed way back in the month of January 1988 and the plaintiff's evidence has been completed, observed that by way of amendment the plaintiff wanted to alter the cause of action. The learned trial court also commented that the amendment regarding requirement was based on so many hypothetical suggestions about likelihood of the future development; and that in relation to the standard rent, a separate suit could be filed.