Lallulal Kedia Andanr Vs Smt Lalita Devi Andanr

Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Kaluram, Aged about 59 years, R/o Chitrakoot, Plot No.276, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Shopkeeper Shop No.90, Kaluram Mavewala, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶10

Kaluram Sharma S/o Shri Dhanna Lal, Shop No.90, Kaluram Mavewala, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶11

(deceased during pendency of the writ petition)

¶12

2/1. Purshottam Sharma S/o Late Shri Kaluram Sharma,

¶13

2/2. Bhagwan Sharma S/o Late Shri Kaluram Sharma,

¶14

Both R/o Plot No.276, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6744/2015

¶18

Lallulal Kedia S/o Late Shri Prahlad Das Kedia (died during pendency of Appeal)

¶19

1/1. Harish Kedia S/o Late Shri Lallulal Kedia, Aged about 49 years, R/o 1307, Kedia Bhawan, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Kaluram, Aged about 59 years, R/o Chitrakoot, Plot No.276, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Shopkeeper Shop No.90, Kaluram Mavewala, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶23

Kaluram Sharma S/o Shri Dhanna Lal, Shop No.90, Kaluram Mavewala, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur.

¶24

(deceased during pendency of the writ petition)

¶25

2/1. Purshottam Sharma S/o Late Shri Kaluram Sharma,

¶26

2/2. Bhagwan Sharma S/o Late Shri Kaluram Sharma,

¶27

Both R/o Plot No.276, Himmat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

(2 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35244]

[CW-6743/2015]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.R. K. Daga
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Kapil Bardhar with
	Ms.Anshulika Pareek

¶33

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶34

Order

¶35

03/09/2025

¶36

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments in both the writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order.

¶37

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Tribunal”) by which the application submitted by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the rent eviction application filed by their father has been rejected and the matter has been remanded to the Rent Tribunal by framing an issue “Whether after death of the original landlord Lallulal Kedia, the application filed against the respondents for their eviction on the ground of bona fide need is maintainable or not?”

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”) was submitted by Lallulal Kedia, who happens to be the father of the petitioner Harish Kedia, for eviction of the respondents on the ground of his bona fide need.

[2025:RJ-JP:35244]

[CW-6743/2015]

(3 of 7)

Counsel submits that the said application submitted by him was allowed on the ground of his bona fide need and accordingly, orders of ejectment of the respondents from the rental premises were passed.

¶43

Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal and during pendency of the said appeal, the original landlord Lallulal Kedia expired on 15.08.2013 and thereafter, an application was submitted by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the original application for their bona fide need. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the petitioner has not only been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide the same impugned order, but also the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh by framing the above stated issue.

¶44

Counsel submits that a suit/ plaint can be amended under the changed circumstances, after the death of the original landlord in case, his legal representatives are in bona fide need of the rental premises.

¶45

In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments in the case of Kedar

¶46

Nath Agarwal (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead) by

¶47

Lrs. & Ors. decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.41/2000 on 13.10.2004 and he has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tasleem Ahmad Vs. Sabeela Khatoon through Lrs. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.719/2020 on 11.03.2025.

[2025:RJ-JP:35244]

[CW-6743/2015]

(4 of 7)

Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶52

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the bona fide need of the landlord comes to an end immediately after his death. Counsel submits that in case his legal representatives are having any bona fide need, they are supposed to file successive suit instead of filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the suit.

¶53

Counsel submits that the Appellate Court has not committed any error not only in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for seeking amendment in the rent eviction application, but also the matter has been rightly remitted back to the Rent Tribunal, after framing an issue about the maintainability of the eviction application submitted by the father of the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶54

In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. while deciding Civil Appeal No.8233 of 2010.

¶55

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

[2025:RJ-JP:35244]

[CW-6743/2015]

(5 of 7)

Perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 was submitted by the father of the petitioners, i.e., Lallulal Kedia against the respondents against their eviction on the ground of bona fide need/ necessity of the rental premises.

¶60

The aforesaid application submitted by the landlord Lallulal Kedia was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 02.04.2010 against which an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal and during pendency of the said appeal, the original landlord Lallulal Kedia expired on 15.08.2013, hence, under the changed circumstances, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was submitted by the petitioner seeking amendment of the eviction application on the ground of their bona fide need.

¶61

The application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Appellate Tribunal by holding that such application is not maintainable as the bona fide need is required to be seen at the time of filing of the application. 16. By passing the aforesaid order not only the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected, but also the matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh by framing the following issue “Whether after death of the applicant Lallulal Kedia, the application filed by him was maintainable or not for his bona fide need?”

¶62

This Court in the case of Kedar Nath Methi Vs. Mitthal reported in 2009 (1) WLC Rajasthan 400 , after considering the several verdicts passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

(6 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35244]

[CW-6743/2015]

Pradeep Kumar Paliwal Vs. LRs. of Mithan lal & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) DNJ (Raj) 68, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385, Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 has taken the categorical view that after death of the original landlord, his legal representatives are not required to file independent suit with regard to the relief sought by the original landlord as the new suit would result in multiplicity of the proceedings. The legal representatives of the original landlord can file an appropriate application seeking amendment in the suit/ application submitted by the original landlord.

¶67

Considering the above proposition of law as propounded by this Court in the case of Kedar Nath Methi (supra), the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and setaside.

¶68

The writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the Tribunal to decide the application on the basis of the averments mentioned in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides and after recording their evidence.

¶69