2000(4) ALL MR 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

V.K. BARDE, J.

Gangaram Motiram Vyas Vs. Kashinath Onkar Mandore & Ors.

Civil Rev. Appln. No. 1140 of 1992

29th June, 2000

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. S. C. BORA
Respondent Counsel: Shri. K. G. NAVANDAR, Senior Counsel, with Shri. M. N. NAVANDAR

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act (1947), S.13(1)(g) - Eviction of tenant for bona fide need - Plaintiff asking for possession for his own requirement - Amendment of plaint sought to claim possession on requirements of his sons - Amendment could be allowed because of changed circumstances - Eviction sought on some other two grounds also - Application for amendment as a whole could not be rejected on ground that plaintiff could have filed separate suit on fresh cause of actions if he failed in appeal.

Civil P.C. (1908), O.6, R.17. (Paras 11, 12)

Cases Cited:
Netram Ganpat Ingale deceased through his L.Rs. Gangabai w/o. Netram Ingale Vs. Baliram Vyankat Mistri, 1998(3) ALL MR 424 =1998(3) Mh. L.J. 667 [Para 7]
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram, AIR 1992 SC 700 [Para 10]
P. Sriramamurthy Vs. Vasantha Raman, AIR 1997 SC 1388 [Para 10]
Gurdev Singh Vs. Surjit Kumar @ Jit, (1996) 9 SCC 219 [Para 10]


JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, on 7th October 1992, in Civil Appeal No. 339/1985.

2. The present respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 122/1978 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon, against the present petitioners, under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act"), for possession of the premises on various grounds, including the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent and on the ground that the suit premises were reasonably and bona fide required by plaintiff no. 2, Shivnath Onkar Mandore, the landlord. After hearing, the learned Civil Judge directed the tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff but only on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent. The claim of the plaintiff, that the suit premises was required bona fide for the occupation by plaintiff no. 2, Shivnath, was rejected and also held that the greater hardship would be caused to defendant no. 2, if the decree for possession was to be passed.

3. As the tenant was directed to hand over possession of the premises, the tenant filed the appeal. In the appeal, on 28-2-1992, when it came up for hearing, original plaintiff no. 2 filed an application for incorporating certain pleas because of changed circumstances as being the additional grounds for claiming possession of the suit premises on bona fide requirement. Thereafter, plaintiff no. 2 filed application for amendment in the plaint. The tenant appellant raised objection to the amendment in the plaint.

4. However, the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, allowed the application, directed the plaintiff to effect amendment in the plaint and directed the defendant - tenant to file written statement and he then further directed that suit be remanded for recording additional evidence with respect to the pleas raised by the amendment and the written statement filed in reply to those pleas. He also directed that the trial Court should record the evidence and then record finding by the end of December 1992 and till then the further hearing of the appeal was stayed. Against this order, the petitioner tenant has filed the revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that, no doubt, the plaintiff had filed the suit for claiming possession on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises. But that plea was restricted to the requirement of plaintiff no. 2 and on that issue, evidence was recorded by the trial Court and finding was also given against the plaintiff. Now, the plaintiff has filed application contending that the suit premises is required for the use of his three sons who have grown up, have obtained qualifications and have to start their profession or business. These grounds are altogether different than the original grounds pleaded in the plaint. There may be changed circumstances during the pendency of the suit and appeal. But that does not mean that altogether new case be pleaded by the plaintiff and that should be allowed by the Court. The grounds which are mentioned are giving different cause of action with reference to different dates for the plaintiff to claim possession and the plaintiff can very well file a separate suit on those causes of action.

6. Learned Counsel for petitioner further argued that the matter is pending in the Court since 1978. The appeal came up for hearing in the year 1992. So, during the period of 14 years, many changes must have taken place and if every time for such changes, the plaint is to be amended or written statement is to be amended, means that no proceeding will see the end in reasonable time. Learned IVth Additional District Judge erred in allowing the application. So, that order be set aside.

7. Learned Counsel for petitioner has relied upon ruling of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the matter, Netram Ganpat Ingale deceased through his L.Rs. Gangabai w/o. Netram Ingale and others Vs. Baliram Vyankat Mistri and another (1998 (3) Mh. L.J. 667: {1998(3) ALL MR 424}). That was a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Court, Jalgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 334/1980 and there the petitioner had argued very strongly that the subsequent events which may nonsuit the plaintiffs may be taken into consideration even in the Writ Petition. However, that argument was turned down and the Court held that the subsequent events, in such circumstances, cannot be taken into consideration.

8. It is worth noting that the plea for taking into consideration the subsequent events was taken in the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. While in this matter, the application for amendment in the plaint is filed in the appeal. So, the observations made in that judgment cannot be of any use for the matter in hand.

9. Learned Counsel for respondent has argued that there was the plea that the premises were required bona fide for the personal occupation of plaintiff no. 2. On the basis of evidence brought before the Court, that plea was rejected by the trial Court. However, during the pendency of the suit, three sons of plaintiff no. 2 obtained qualifications which require for them to start their business or profession and, therefore, the plaintiff sought for amendment in the plaint. There was no material change in the frame of the suit. Only some additional grounds are being placed to claim the same relief. Those additional grounds were not available when the suit was being heard before the trial Court. Only after filing of the appeal, these events have taken place. So, to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the prayer for amendment in the plaint was sought and it was rightly allowed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge.

10. Learned Counsel for respondent has relied upon ruling of the Supreme Court, in the matter Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram (AIR 1992 SC 700). The Apex Court has observed :

" The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a 'cautious cognizance' of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief."

Learned Counsel for respondent has also relied upon other two rulings of the Supreme Court, in the matters, (i) P. Sriramamurthy Vs. Vasantha Raman (AIR 1997 SC 1388), and (ii) Gurdev Singh Vs. Surjit Kumar @ Jit and another (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 219).

11. Considering the above quoted ruling and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in this matter, even if plaintiff no. 2 first had asked for possession of the suit premises on his own bona fide requirement, because of the changed circumstances, he can press that claim by effecting amendment in the plaint to claim possession of the premises on the requirement of his sons.

12. The other two grounds which are mentioned in the amendment application are ancillary to the first ground of bona fide requirement. So, the application as a whole, cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the plaintiff could have filed separate suit, in case, he had lost the appeal on the fresh cause of actions arising because of the changed circumstances.

13. Here, it also has to be noted that the learned IVth Additional District Judge has passed the order granting amendment in the plaint which is discretionary order as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the revisional Court has to go very slow while interfering in such discretionary order. Here, the learned IVth Additional District Judge has exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. No doubt, the suit would go back to the trial Court, but the defendant would get opportunity to put forth his case. No prejudice would be caused to the defendant. On the contrary, as there is stay to the decree for eviction, the defendant has retained the possession of the suit premises. So, he is better placed because of this act of plaintiff of prolonging hearing of the appeal. So, this is not a matter where interference is called.

14. Hence, Civil Revision Application No. 1140/1992 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.