PREM LAL Vs. JADAV CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the correctness of the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (1969 Raj LW 546) : (AIR 1970 Raj 77) and reiterated by him in Kedarnath v. Pana Devi (1972 WLN 501) 8 (AIR 1973 Raj 24) holding that an application by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a new ground of eviction viz., on the ground of default based on Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, be allowed under Section 153 or Order 16, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where such ground arises after the institution of a suit for the eviction of the defendant on one or more of the grounds set forth in Section 13 (1) of the Act, inasmuch as that would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to include a cause of action which had not accrued on the date of the suit,

(2.) The parties stand in the relationship of landlord and tenant. On 13-7-1972, the plaintiff brought the suit for eviction of the defendant under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Act i. e. on the ground of his personal necessity alleging that he requires the suit premises, which is a shop, reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. On the date of the soft, the defendant was in arrears of rent, but the ground mentioned in Clause (a) thereof was not available to the plaintiff, inasmuch as he was not in arrears with the rent for a period of six months. The defendant filed his written statement contesting the plaintiffs claim and pleaded that the alleged necessity was not the bona fide requirement, but was just a pretence to secure his eviction, Bat before the suit could be fixed for evidence, the plaintiff on 2-4-1976 i.e. after about 4 years of the institution of the suit, made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking to amend the plaint with a view to incorporate an additional ground under Section 13 (1) (a), alleging that the defendant, had neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent for more than 6 months. That application of his has been allowed by the learned trial Judge by the order in revision. At the hearing, it was urged that the learned trial Judge was bound to follow the decisions of Jagat Narayan J., in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari, supra, and Kedarnath v. Panadevi supra, holding that no such amendment can be allowed. After hearing the parties at length, I felt that these decisions require reconsideration and, therefore, the matter has been placed before a larger Beach.

(3.) The decisions of Jagat Narayan J. in Rajeshwar Dayal v. Padam Kumar Kothari (AIR 1970 Raj 77) (supra) and Kedarnath v. Panadevi (AIR 1973 Raj 24) (supra) proceed on the assumption that the existence of one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1) of the Act, constitutes a necessary part of the cause of action for eviction of a tenant from an accommodation and, therefore where such a ground comes into existence after the institution of a suit on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 (1) of the Act, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint to introduce such a ground.