Joginder Singh and Others vs Raj Takkar

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioners-landlord against the order dated 14.9.1996 passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh. By this order, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the petition. In the said application, the landlord had sought amendment of Para 3 (v) of the petition. The existing pare 3(v) reads as under :-

"That the petitioner No. 1 is retiring after attaining the age of superannuation on 19.7.1995. The family of the petitioner consists of his wife and two sons laid who are unmarried. The petitioner No. 1 wants to settle down at Chandigarh after his retirement. Therefore, the dimised premises consisting of the residential portion is required by him for his own occupation as well as for the occupation of the family. The petitioners are not occupying any other residential building in the urban area of Chandigarh and have not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the enforcement of the Act in the Urban area of Chandigarh."

Para 3(v) after the proposed amendment reads as under:

"That the petitioner No. 1 Dr. Joginder Singh Juneja has since retired after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Chairman and Managing Director of national Small Industries Corporation on 13th September, 1995. The petitioner No. 1 is Ph.D. in Applied Economics and an MBA from USA, University of Oregan. The petitioner No. 1 had worked as Consultants with International Organisation like UNIDO, World Bank, Common-Wealth Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, APCTT. He has provided consultancy services in the area of development of small and medium industries for employment generation, enterprise development covering all aspects such as Technology, Finance, Management, Marketing, Exports etc. The petitioner No. 1 remained the Chairman of National Small Industries Corporation for about 14 years. The petitioner No. 1 has a unique experience of the industrial development and a rich and varied experience in all fields of industrial promotion and one of the outstanding consultants for the industry. The petitioner No. 1 belongs to State of Punjab and intends to start his consultancy Organisation in Chandigarh so that benefits of his rich experience can be made available to the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh. The petitioner No. 1 is also to induct Mr. Ramandeep Singh Juneja his son in the Consultancy Services. Since the petitioner has retired from the Govt. of India''s job, therefore, he does not have huge funds to acquire commercial outfit for starting his business. The premises in dispute is best suit for opening of the Consultancy Services also. The eldest son of the petitioner No. 1 is doing the business in Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1 wants to settle down in Chandigarh after his retirement in the premises in question, which consists of shop and residential portions. Besides, the petitioner No. 2 also requires the premises in question for his bona fide use and occupation. The petitioner No. 2 has been living in USA since 1971 and has retired from Bectail, which is an international concern. The petitioner No. 2 has decided to return to India. The petitioner No. 2 has no other property/house or commercial outfit. The petitioner No. 2 has one son namely Parminder Singh who has also completed his MD in Medical Education in 1995 from Medical College, Wiscons inn and has also completed his House job. The petitioner No. 2 has decided to return to India with his wife Raghbir Kaur and his son. They are to settle down in Chandigarh. The petitioner No. 2 is to settle his son Parminder Singh in private practice in Chandigarh, therefore, the premises in question are also required by the petitioner No. 2 for setting up the medical practice of his son in the premises in question. The petitioners are not occupying any other residential building or commercial building in the urban area of Chandigarh, nor they have vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Rent Restriction Act in the urban area of Chandigarh."

Mr. Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord submitted that the petitioner vide the proposed amendment wants to bring on record the subsequent events and as such, the learned Rent Controller was not correct in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the petition.

Mr. Sarin, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-tenants submitted that in this case, the petition was filed by the landlord as far back as in the year 1989. He further submitted that the petitioner had already filed two applications for amendment in the petition which were allowed and the present application is the third one which was filed on 5th May, 1996, i.e. after a period of 7 years. He further submitted that vide the proposed amendment, the petitioners were trying to make out a new case by stating that first petitioner''s son Ramandeep Singh Juneja wants to settle in the said premises and further petitioner No. 2 also wants to settle in Chandigarh. He also substituted that by this proposed amendment, the petitioner has changed the date of his retirement from service. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to make out a new case. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., ,

(2) Mahant Sukhdev Puri of Khurana (Kurukshetra) v. Smadh Baba Mauzpuri and another 1984 (2) R.C.R. 667,

(3) Gulshan Kumar v. Chander Bhan 1987 H.R.R. 654,

(4) Rati Ram v. Inder 1989 (2) R.L.R. 282,

I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to bring on record his actual date of retirement from the post of Chairman and Managing Director, National Small Industries Corporation. He also wants to bring on record the particulars about his sons, who also want to settle and live in the suit property and further he wants to bring on record the fact that petitioner No. 2 who himself is the co-owner of the suit premises and is living in USA since 1971 wants to settle in Chandigarh after his retirement. In the existing para 3(v) it has been stated that the family of the petitioner consists of his wife and two sons who are unmarried. In the existing para it has also been stated that he is retiring after attaining the age of superannuation on 19.7.1995 and in the proposed para, it has been stated that he in fact has retired on 13.9.1995. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he did not retire on 19.7.1995 as he was granted extension upto 13.9.1995.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that by the proposed amendment, no new case is being made out on behalf of the petitioners. It is well settled that in case of bona fide necessity, subsequent events can be brought on record. In this connection, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Singh Vs. Surjit Kumar alias Jit and another, . In this case, it was held by apex Court that subsequent events have to be taken note of in the case of bona fide necessity.

The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not ''applicable to the facts of the present case as that case did not relate to the bona fide necessity of the landlord. The other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have been rendered by a Single Bench of this Court and are not related to the bona fide necessity of the landlord.

For the reasons records herein above, the petition is accepted and the order dated 14.9.1996 passed by the learned Rent Controller is set aside and the application dated 6.5.1996 filed by the landlord under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. is allowed.