ISHWAR DATT Vs. DUNI CHAND BHOIL
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
DUNI CHAND BHOIL
Click here to view full judgement.
T.R.HANDA,J. - -
(1.) The petitioner landlord brought an action under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act for ejectment of his tenant, the present respondent from the premises in his tenancy. The relevant grounds on which the petition was filed were as follows :
(i) That the petitioner is very much in need of the premises in the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his son who is recently going to be married and for the use and occupation of his other family members and thus the premises are required bona fide, (ii) That the petitioner is not occupying any residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned nor has he vacated any such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application.
(2.) The pleas of the petitioner found favour with the Rent Controller who vide his order dated 17 -2 -1978 directed the respondent tenant to put the petitioner landlord into vacant possession of the demised premises. The respondent -tenant thereafter approached the Appellate Authority in appeal. Before the Appellate Authority, the present petitioner moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. praying for permission to amend the above quoted paragraphs of his petition containing grounds of ejectment so as to substitute these paragraphs by the following paragraphs : (i) That the petitioner requires the premises under the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his married son who is not occupying any other building as his residence in the urban area of Simla and who has also not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. The premises in question are required by the petitioner bona fide accordingly. (ii) That the premises occupied by the petitioner owned by him in the urban area of Simla are not sufficient for the occupation of his family members as well as for himself and the petitioner has also not vacated without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of this application in the said urban area.
(3.) The necessity for applying this amendment arose as the son of the petitioner got married during the pendency of the proceedings. At the time when the petitioner filed his initial application for ejectment, his son was not married though his marriage was under contemplation and for that reason the petitioner had alleged that he required the premises for his son who was recently going to be married. Subsequently the son was actually married and the petitioner, therefore, sought to amend his petition so as to bring this subsequent development on the record.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.