Virender Kumar Sethi and Anr. Vs Rajan Duggal through Lrs

Th e present revision petition has b een filed by the petitioners/ten a nts for setting asid e the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Rent Controllercum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divisi o n), Yamuna Nagar at Jaga d hri, whereby the ap p lication filed by the legal representatives of the original land l ord under Order V I Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the ejectment petiti o n, has been allowed.

¶13

Th e brief background is that the ejectment petition was origin a lly filed by landl o rd Rajan Duggal (since dece a sed) under the provisions of the Haryana Urba n (Control of Rent & Evictio n ) Act, 1973 for ejectment of the petitioners/tena n ts from one shop known as Set h i Communication, situated at M ela Singh Chowk, o pposite Bata Footwear Showr o om, Yamuna Nagar. The grounds pleaded includ e d arrears of rent and the bona f ide requirement of the landlord for his personal us e and occupation, as he intended to expand his existing photogra p hy business by re m oving the intervening wall b etween his existing shop and the tenanted premises in order to construct a moder n studio.

¶14

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR-1640-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶16

D u ring the pendency of the proc e edings, the landlord Rajan Du g gal expired on 05 . 05.2024. Thereafter, his wife (respondent No.1) and daug h ter (respondent N o .2) moved an application to be impleaded as his l e gal representatives, which was allowed vide or d er dated 30.08.2024. After b e ing impleaded, the L Rs of Rajan Duggal filed an a pplication under Order VI Rul e 17 CPC seeking a m endment of the ejectment pe t ition to plead their own bona f ide requirement. It w as stated that they are carryin g on the business of photograph y in the shop adjoi n ing the demised premises und e r the name and style of Mehb o ob Studio with th e assistance of Arun Kumar, h u sband of respondent No.1(ii) a nd son-in-law of r e spondent No.1(i), and that the y now require the demised prem i ses to expand the s a me business by removing the intervening wall.

¶17

Th e petitioners/tenants contested t he application for amendment on the ground tha t after the death of the landlo r d, the petition itself had bec o me infructuous, as the original ground of bona fi d e requirement projected by R a jan Duggal was pe r sonal to him and stood extingu i shed with his death. It was fur t her contended that the proposed amendment wo u ld materially alter the nature a nd cause of action of the ejectment petition, and would virtually amount to introducing an e ntirely new case, leading to a d e novo trial. It was argued that e v en otherwise, the s on-in-law cannot be projected as a dependent for the purpos e of bona fide requi r ement, as he is already engage d in independent business. Reliance was placed on Samey Lal v. Baljit Kaur, 2022(2) PLR 226 , to contend that if the amendment so u ght changes the very basis an d cause of action of the pleadi n gs, such amendme n t cannot be allowed.

¶18

Th e learned Rent Controller, h o wever, allowed the amend m ent application vid e impugned order dated 15.01.2 0 25, holding that although the L Rs TRIPTI SAINIcould file a fre s h ejectment petition on the gro u nd of their bona fide requirem e nt, 2025.08.28 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CR-1640-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶20

the same would lead to multiplicity of litigatio n and unnecessary expense, whe r eas allowing the a m endment would serve the ends of justice, since the LRs were not seeking to intro d uce any entirely new ground b u t only continuing the same gro u nd of bona fide re q uirement by pleading their ow n necessity in place of the dece a sed

¶21

landlord.

¶22

Fe e ling aggrieved by order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the lear n ed Rent Controller, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, th e petitioners/tenants have prefe r red the present revi s ion petition.

¶23

I h a ve heard learned counsel for th e parties and examined the record. 8. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/tena n ts that the petition had become infructuous on account of the d e ath of the landlor d is concerned, the said con t ention cannot be accepted. T he application filed by the widow and daughte r of the deceased landlord to be impleaded as his legal representatives was allo w ed on 30.08.2024, and in para 3 of that order it w a s specifically recorded that the y had stepped into the shoes of the deceased landl o rd and were entitled to prosecu t e the ejectment petition. This o r der has attained fi n ality as it was never challenge d . Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the p etitioner to now urge that t h e ejectment petition has bec o me infructuous.

¶24

Th e second contention of the lear n ed counsel for the tenant that the amendment ch a nges the cause of action and th e very nature of the petition is a lso without merit. R eliance in this regard may be placed upon the judgment of t his Court in Managing Director, Markfed Punjab v. S.C. Bhalla (deceased) and others, 2023(2) RCR (Rent) 482 . In the said ca s e, the original landlord had exp i red during the pen d ency of the ejectment proceedi n gs. His legal representatives w ere TRIPTI SAINIimpleaded and filed an application for amend m ent of the petition to incorpo r ate 2025.08.28 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CR-1640-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶26

their own bona fide requirement. It was argue d therein, just as here, that the l e gal representatives c ould only file a fresh petition a nd not amend the existing one. T he argument was r e jected, and it was held as follo w s:-

¶27

“ where the possession is sou g ht by the landlord on the groun d of bo n afide requirement and during t he pendency of the application, the la n dlord dies, his legal repr e sentatives can prosecute s u ch ap p lication on the basis of their o w n need in substitution of the need of the deceased. Death is an ev e nt which is not in the contro l of an y one. To say that ground of pe r sonal necessity was individuali s tic in i ts tone and tenor and was onl y for the landlord in his indivi d ual ca p acity, is not correct. This g round of ejectment against the pe t itioner-tenant also enures for t he benefit of his widow. Howe v er, th e petitioner will have to establish existence of such pers o nal ne c essity in the background of fac t s and milieu concerning her in the co n temporaneous circumstances. In any case, allowing of the ap p lication for amendment of the p etition ipso facto is no proof of her pe r sonal requirement of the premises so as to order eviction w h ich as p ect is yet to be determined by t h e Rent Controller in the light o f the evi d ence of the parties." 10. Re f erence was made therein to th e decision of the Hon’ble Supr e me Court in Kedar Nath Agrawal (Dead) v. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by LRs [2004 (2) RCR (Rent) 498]; Rajinder Singh v. Satinder Kaur & Ors. [2015 (1) RCR (Rent) 427] , wherein t he principle has been clearly enunciated that the right to seek ejectment on t h e ground of bona fide requir e ment survives to the heirs of the deceased landlord.

¶28

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CR-1640-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

¶30

In the present case also, the LR s of late Rajan Duggal have o nly sought to subst i tute their bona fide requireme n t in place of that of the dece a sed landlord. By al l owing the amendment, the Co u rt has not ipso facto accepted the bona fide requi r ement of the LRs. That question will still have to be examine d on merits at the ti m e of final decision, in the ligh t of the evidence led by the par t ies. The amendmen t does not change the nature o f the petition or introduce a wh o lly new ground, bu t merely substitutes the require m ent of the legal heirs for that o f the deceased, whic h is permissible in law.

¶31

Th e case law cited by the learned c ounsel for the petitioners/tenants in the case of Samey Lal (supra) is of no help to the petitioners/tenants and ther e is no dispute to s e ttled proposition of law that if t he amendment sought changes the very basis and cause of action of the plea d ings, such amendment cannot be allowed. How e ver, the same is not applicable to the present case as amend m ent sought in this c ase does not change the ver y basis and cause of action of the pleadings as de t ailed above.

¶32

In view of the settled legal po s ition, the impugned order d a ted 15.01.2025 allowing the amendment suffers fr o m no infirmity. The learned R ent Controller has r i ghtly exercised his discretion i n the matter.

¶33

Ac c ordingly, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismiss e d.

¶34

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

August 25, 202 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶36

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.28 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Virender Kumar Sethi and Anr. v. Rajan Duggal through Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

Virender Kumar Sethi and Anr. v. Rajan Duggal through Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakma Vs Banta Deceased through Lrs.

Baldev Singh @ Jassa Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh

Dilbag Rai Bhalla Vs Parminder Kaur and Anr.

Ram Chander Vs Dharambir

Kanwalkant & Anrs. Vs Bhagwan Kaur & Ors.

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Pseb and Anr.