Partly allowed

Auto Center, Nokha v. Sri Kant

Rajasthan HC30 Aug 2024CW/12385/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Writ Bench directed the Appellate Court to allow parties to raise the issue of the relevance of a subsequent sale of part of the property on the original bonafide requirement claim and decide the pending appeal within four months.

What did the court decide?

Findings on the legal issue regarding subsequent sale relevance were modified; parties given liberty to raise the issue; Appellate Court directed to decide the appeal within four months; Writ Petition

Auto Center, Nokha Vs Sri Kant — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:36030]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12385/2019

¶4

Auto Center, Nokha, Through Partner Shri Jaichand Lal S/o Shri Ugam Chand Betala, Aged 50 Year, Jain Chowk, Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sri Kant S/o Mohan Lal Rajpurohit, Behind Petrol Pump, Near Railway Station, Nokha, District Bikaner.

¶8

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., A-5 And A-6, Sector1, Noida-201301.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rajeev Purohit
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
		Mr. Vinay Kothari and Mr. Ayush Goyal through V.C.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order

¶12

30/08/2024

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No.3, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.

¶14

The background of the case discloses that the respondent No.1 herein is the landlord and the petitioner herein is the tenant. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on two grounds: the first ground is default of rent and the second ground is the bonafide requirement. The suit of the landlord was decreed on 12.01.2006 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D) No.4, Bikaner. Against the said decree, the tenant has filed the appeal.

[2024:RJ-JD:36030]

[CW-12385/2019]

(2 of 3)

It is the case of the tenant that during the pendency of the appeal, the landlord allegedly sold out the subject property, whereas the claim of the landlord is that he has not entirely sold out the subject land and only a part of it has been sold out.

¶19

According to the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, the subsequent event of sale gives rise to a fresh cause of action to him to deny the relief of bonafide requirement. As such, he has filed an application for amendment of the written statements/pleadings.

¶20

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the landlord is that the entire property was not sold out, but a part of the subject land has been sold out and the bonafide requirement has to be seen with reference to the date of institution of the suit and not from the subsequent events.

¶21

The learned Appellate Court, having considered the contention and pleadings of the parties, has dismissed the application for amendment of written statements/pleadings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

The reasoning of the impugned order shows that the suit was decreed 13 years back and cause of action has to be seen with reference to the date of filing of the suit and subsequent event cannot be a ground to amend the pleadings. 8. This Court finds that there is no dispute between the parties that some part of the subject property has been sold out. In the said background, the only legal issue will be whether the subsequent event of sale of part of the total property can be a ground to deny the bonafide requirement of the landlord.

[2024:RJ-JD:36030]

[CW-12385/2019]

(3 of 3)

The findings in the impugned order shows that the subsequent event has no relevance to the original cause of action, required to be set aside. Since, such findings ought not be given at the time of deciding the application. Such issue is legal issue which can be decided at the time of hearing the appeal. To that extent, the impugned order required to be modified. For the said purpose, amendment of pleading are unwarranted.

¶27

A liberty is given to both the parties to raise the issue of relevancy of subsequent sale on the original claim of the landlord. 11. It is open to both the parties to submit their own case before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court shall decide such issue, if any raised. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receiving this order.

¶28

With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶30

309-Ramesh/-

Auto Center, Nokha v. Sri Kant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Auto Center, Nokha v. Sri Kant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Choudhary Vs State and Ors.

Leelavati Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh Rathore Vs the Central Co-Op Bank and Anr.

Jamal Khan Vs State and Ors.

Onkar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jagdish Vs State of Raj. and Ors.