PRAKASH TATIA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order dated 10th July, 2003 by which the trial court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff on 9h July, 2003.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits tha originally the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction against the defendant from the premises in question on other grounds, which are the grounds available in sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. However, the plaintiff also claimed relief of decree for arrears of rent, which were alleged by the plaintiff not paid to the plaintiff only. Now, the plaintiff has submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and wants to incorporate a new cause of action and that is alleged ground of default in payment of rent committed by the defendant-petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in entire application, the plaintiff has not even stated and explained the reason for delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint in view of the fact that the ground for seeking relief on the basis of alleged default accrued to the plaintiff immediately on completion of six months' default whereas the plaintiff filed the application after about 23 months. It is also submitted that new Act governing the matter relating to the landlord and tenant has come into force and, therefore, no suit can be filed on the basis of the ground of default by the plaintiff without complying with the provisions of the new Act. It is also submitted that this is (will ?) change the nature of the suit. After hearing the arguments, it is clear that so far as maintainability of the petitioner's suit is concerned, there is no dispute and it can proceed despite coming into force of the new Rent Control Act. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings of the suit are governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, question, now remains is that whether by amendment, the nature of suit will be changed and the plaintiff is incorporating new cause of action, which was not available on the day when the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit is for getting the decree for the premises let out to the defendant and, therefore, nature of the suit is for eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant and on the basis of the grounds, which are available to the landlord. The default committed by the defendant during the pendency of the suit is also one of the grounds for seeking decree for eviction. Therefore, the suit filed only on one of the grounds and if some more grounds accrues to the plaintiff and the result will be the same, if those grounds are permitted to be raised. Meaning thereby, the suit will remain a suit between the landlord and tenant and there will be few more additional grounds. It cannot be said that it will change the nature of the suit in any manner. Inclusion of ground to seek ultimate relief, which is already claimed by the plaintiff in original plaint is not changing the nature of the suit.
(3.) SO far as delay is concerned, it is immaterial in this case because of the reason that the accrual of right to seek decree on the basis of the default is a continuing cause of action and has not come to an end by passing of time. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, the landlord cannot be permitted to file petition without explaining the delay. The same principle has no application to the facts of the case in view of the reasons mentioned above. In view of the above discussion and in view of the fact that by the order impugned multiplicity of the proceedings will be avoided, this court is not inclined to entertain this revision petition. Hence, the revision petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.;