Gujarat High Court
Chimanbhai Maganbhai Maradia & 2 vs Khevinaben Rambhai Patel on 9 June, 2016
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
C/SCA/8954/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8954 of 2016
==========================================================
CHIMANBHAI MAGANBHAI MARADIA & 2....Petitioner(s)
Versus
KHEVINABEN RAMBHAI PATEL....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
RUSHABH H SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3
MR SP MAJMUDAR, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 09/06/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge order dated 12.5.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara in Rent Suit No.58 of 1992, whereby the learned trial Judge has permitted the respondent - plaintiff to add additional grounds for eviction as envisaged in section 13(1)(L) of the Rent Act.
2. I have heard the submissions made at bar and considered the facts that the respondent - plaintiff has filed suit for eviction for breach of provisions of sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Act.
3. Learned advocate Mr. R.H. Shah for the petitioners would contend that the proposed amendment is barred by Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Jun 10 03:02:14 IST 2016 C/SCA/8954/2016 ORDER proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the proposed ground is barred by law of limitation and the respondent - plaintiff may file new suit for the grounds proposed in the amendment application. In support of his submissions, he has pressed into service decision rendered in case of Shiv Gopal Sah Alies Shiv Gopal Sahu Vs. Sita Ram Saraugi reported in AIR 2007 SC 1478.
4. It is true that the amendment application is moved by the respondent - plaintiff at belated stage, but it is a matter of fact that the proposed grounds came into existence pending the suit filed under the Rent Act. The grounds based on subsequent events are always permissible, because cause of action of the suit for eviction arises on service of notice terminating the tenancy and addition of any grounds to the same cause of action would neither change the structure of the suit nor it can cause any further hardship to the parties to the suit. The object and purpose to permit such amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. But, however, while permitting such amendment, the Court is required to take care of rights of the parties, so that they may not be deprived to lead any further evidence in support of the proposed grounds or any defence. The learned trial Judge has also permitted parties to lead evidence in this regard. Thus, considering the over all scope of the suit and the proposed amendment, the discretionary powers exercised by the Court cannot be said to be perverse or against the settled principles of law and therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India warrants at the hands of this Court. Additionally, the reference of proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code as made by the learned advocate for the petitioner Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Jun 10 03:02:14 IST 2016 C/SCA/8954/2016 ORDER is not helpful to him, because the said proviso is added in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the year 1999/2002, whereas the suit in question is filed in the year 1992. Therefore, said argument is devoid of merits. Even otherwise, the proposed amendment is squarely covered by the decision rendered in case of Jayalaxmi T. Pandya Vs. Shantilal C. Modi reported in 1995(2) GLH 806 and more particularly, Head Notes B and C. Request to impose cost made on behalf of learned advocate for the petitioner is also rejected.
5. The petition being devoid of merits, both on law and facts, stands rejected.
(S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Jun 10 03:02:14 IST 2016