Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., dismissed the present petition filed by the petitioner and denied the recasting of issues at the stage of conclusion of the trial.

In the present case, the order in Title Eviction Suit is under challenge by the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner had admitted that the property in question has been sub-letted in his favour described as Schedule “B” of the plaint. However, the petitioner had filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to frame an additional issue to the effect that the Schedule “B” premises is not the tenanted premises, therefore, the said issue pertaining to the premises needed to be adjudicated by framing a separate issue but it was rejected by the Court. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner.

In the Eviction Suit, the trial court has found that the suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant from alleged suit “B” land and trial was concluded and the case was fixed for argument and at that stage, the petition was filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for recasting of the issues. Therefore the trial court declined to pass positive order in favour of the petitioner.

In view of the above, this Court has found that the petitioner had raised the issue of having no relation of landlord and tenant after putting his appearance in the eviction suit in question, therefore, a particular issue to that effect has been framed. The court is of the view that now the petitioner is trying to recast the issue by taking plea that he is not in the premises said to have been tenanted in his favour as under Schedule “B” and to that effect the issues have already been framed, therefore, after conclusion of the trial and when the case has been posted for final arguments, the recasting of issue is nothing but to delay the proceeding, therefore, this Court has held that the trial Court has committed any illegality in not passing a positive order. [Md. Allauddin v. Laxmi Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1003, decided on 06-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., dismissed the petition filed for mainly amendment of the issues framed in the pleadings at a later stage.

The facts of the case were that the respondent-landlord had filed an application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, for recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and denied the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent. This started the series of litigation that followed thereafter between the parties. During this, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for amendment of the issues. The petitioner also made a request to delete issues framed earlier and prayed for framing of a new issue. Also, he filed an application under Section 21 read with Section 11 of the Court Fee Act and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with the averment that the respondent in the rent application had although prayed for arrears of rent along with 18% interest per annum, but did not pay the appropriate court fee. The argument advanced by the respondent was that the eviction suit was filed in the year 2010 and had been going on for almost nine years, and thus, at that stage when no material change in the original pleadings were made, then permitting the petitioner to file new applications just for the purpose of delaying the proceedings was inappropriate.

The Court held that the parties were satisfied with the issues so framed at that juncture, and therefore, since no material change was reflected in the pleadings, at a belated stage, the petitioner was barred to contend that the issues need to be re-framed. The petition was thus rejected. [Umesh Jhamb v. Parkash Rani, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 326, Order dated 12-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Prabhat Kumar Jha, J. dismissed a petition filed against an order allowing production of additional documents.

Petitioner herein filed an eviction suit against one Rajendra Mistri, which was decreed in his favour. Respondents herein (who are widow and sons of Rajendra Mistri) filed an appeal against the said decree along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for bringing additional documents on record. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The Court noted that respondents were not aware of the pendency of the eviction suit filed by the petitioner. Rajendra Mistri, who was contesting the suit, became traceless in the middle of hearing, and the suit was decided without allowing the defendant to produce any documentary evidence as the fact of him being traceless could not be brought to the knowledge of the court. When the suit was decreed, his legal heirs got knowledge about this fact and filed an appeal along with a petition stating that they had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit. They also filed an application for adducing additional documents which had a bearing on merits of the case. On consideration of these facts, the learned District Judge allowed their petition for adducing additional evidence

Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of CPC clearly envisages that party seeking to produce additional evidence, must establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. It was held that respondents’ case clearly fell within the purview of said provision and thus there was no infirmity in the impugned order.[Vijay Kumar Singh v. Soni Kuer, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2292, Order dated 06-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Bench of Anu Malhotra, J. dismissed a revision petition filed against the order Additional Rent Controller whereby the tenant’s application for leave to defend the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed by the landlord was dismissed.

The landlord had filed an eviction suit against the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The tenant represented by Virendra Singh, Advocate urged that the need of the landlord was artificial and mala fide. It was alleged that the landlord and the tenant were in the same business and the landlord sought to evict the tenant due to business rivalry and the landlord did not require any additional accommodation for doing any work.

The High Court perused the entire record and noted that landlord sought eviction of tenant stating that he wanted to expand his business and required the space available in the tenanted shop for bona fide purpose. It was observed by the Court that the tenant did not provide any specific details or evidence to substantiate his claims. It was further observed as well settled that “landlord is the best judge of his own needs”. In facts and circumstances the present case, it was held that there was no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order. Thus, the petition was dismissed. [Subhash Chander Rana v. Jitender Verma, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13239, decided on 29-12-2018]