Allowed

Malook Singh v. Prithipal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2008CR/4537/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed amendment of ejectment petition where landlord voluntarily surrendered adjacent shop, permitting new ground of bona fide need for son's business business establishment without causing injustice to tenant.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; Impugned order set aside; Petitioner permitted to amend petition; Rs 5,000 costs payable by petitioner to respondent.

Malook Singh Vs Prithipal Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007

¶4

Date of Decision: February 05, 2007

Malook Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Prithipal Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶11

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Mr.Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶16

¶17

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶18

Prayer of the petitioner seeking amendment of his ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 has been declined. The petitioner-landlord filed an application for ejectment of the respondent from a shop in dispute, inter-alia, on the ground that he is in arrears of rent and that

¶19

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007 : 2 :

¶20

shop is needed for use by the petitioner. The ejectment petition is being contested by the respondent-tenant. During the pendency of these proceedings, another shop adjacent to the shop in dispute and in occupation of another tenant Balwinder Singh has been vacated by him. The possession of the shop has been delivered to the petitioner-landlord in the year 2004. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment of his ejectment petition by including the averment that the possession of other shop under the tenancy of Balwinder Singh has been voluntarily surrendered to the petitioner. The said shop is very small and the petitioner would need this ship as well as the shop under tenancy of the respondent for running the business for his son. This amendment has been resisted by the respondent. One of the issue on which the present application is prosecuted is the bona fide need of the demised premises for use by the petitioner.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would attempt to convey that new case is being set up by the petitioner. It is stated that need by the petitioner for running business for his son has not been so pleaded in the ejectment application and as such the petitioner cannot now be permitted to set up a new case altogether. To rebut this, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the previous pleadings which are re-produced in the order itself. It is seen that the petitioner has pleaded that he is unemployed and wants to start his own business of stationary and books as well as general store. It is specifically pleaded that the applicant is having a son, namely, Amarbeer Singh, who is un-employed and whom the

¶22

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007 : 3 :

¶23

petitioner wants to settle. It cannot, thus, be said that this ground is now being raised for the first time by way of amendment.

¶24

Amendment of a pleading is well regulated by various authoritative judicial pronouncements of different courts including the Supreme Court. In Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. Manohar Singh & Anr., 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 844 it is observed that court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of the pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Reference can also be made to Ma. Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung, AIR 1922 P.C. 249, where it is observed as under:-

¶25

“All rules of courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change by means of amendment, the subject-matter of the suit.”

¶26

It is, thus, seen that the subject matter of a suit cannot be changed by way of amendment and so also there is no power available to substitute a cause of action with distinct cause. In Baldev Singh' case (supra), it is also observed that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow

¶27

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007 : 4 :

¶28

amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the Court should allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of suit can be avoided and the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. It can, thus, be noticed that there is a wide power and unfettered discretion in allowing the amendment of pleadings if it appears to the court to be just and proper. Reference in this case may also be made to Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K.Modi & Ors., 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 577. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, 1969 (1) SCC 869, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to observe that a party cannot be refused just relief mainly because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. In N.K.Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameshwaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712, it is observed as under:-

¶29

“3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in

¶30

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007 : 5 :

¶31

cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation.”

¶32

Thus, it can be seen that the courts have wide and unfettered discretion to allow amendment of the pleadings. It is also observed that such powers are always liberally exercised. The only thing which the court may be required to keep in mind is that the amendment should not result in any injustice or irreparable loss to the other side.

¶33

The vacation of one ship voluntarily by another tenant is a subsequent event, which is required to be taken into consideration. The respondent can also refer to this subsequent event to urge that the need of the petitioner-landlord would now stand satisfied on vacation of another shop. In this background, the petitioner can be permitted to plead that his need would still remain despite one shop having been vacated for which perhaps he has made prayer for amendment of the pleadings. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent could not show anything that this would result in prejudice or irreparable loss to him.

¶34

Adopting the liberal approach, the amendment sought by the petitioner needs to be allowed. The impugned order is accordingly set-aside. The petitioner would be permitted to amend the petition as prayed. The Rent Controller would be at liberty to afford opportunity to the parties for leading evidence, if so required in

¶35

Civil Revision No.4537 of 2007 : 6 :

¶36

accordance with law. The petitioner, however, need to compensate the respondent and as such would pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- in this regard, which shall be deposited before the Rent Controller on the next date. The respondent would be at liberty to claim the same.

¶37

The revision petition is accordingly allowed in above

¶38

terms.

¶39

February 05, 2007 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE

Malook Singh v. Prithipal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malook Singh v. Prithipal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Luxmi Enterprises Vs M/S Gopal Soap Industries

State of Haryana Vs Atul Satsangi and Ors.

Kultar Singh Vs Balwinder Singh and Ors.

Bhola Singh Vs Gurcharan Singh and Anr.

Mamta Loomba Vs L I C of India and Anr.

Shingara Singh Vs Jagdish Kumar