Nand Kishore Prajapati vs Prativa Devi and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Seeking quashing of order dated 7.5.2013 in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2012 whereby the application under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issues has been rejected, the present application has been filed. It is stated that the plaintiff/owner instituted the suit being Eviction Suit No. 2 of 2012 for a decree of ejectment of the defendant/present petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity, default for payment of rent besides, arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3800/-. The defendant was inducted in the suit premises for a fixed period of 11 months from 1.11.1997 to 30.9.1998 and thereafter, a fresh lease was executed for further 11 months and thereafter, the defendants became a month to month tenant. The case pleaded by the plaintiff for personal necessity is establishment of Seva Sadan Clinic for his son who is a medical practitioner. The defendant appeared and filed written statement and after framing of issues he filed an application dated 10.4.2013 for framing the following additional issues:--

"(i) Whether the plaintiff granted rent receipt to the defendant getting signature of defendant.

(ii) Whether Dr. Praveen Kumar son of plaintiff posted at Chatra Sadar Hospital can establish Sewa Sadan Clinic in the suit premises situated at Chatra Town?

(iii) Whether suit premises situated beside S.S. Girls High School, Chatra is suitable place to establish Seva Sadan Clinic or Hospital and plaintiffs have got any sanction for the same from the Government."

The said application has been rejected vide impugned letter dated 7.5.2013.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since, the plaintiff pleaded that the suit premises is required for establishing Seva Sadan Clinic, the additional issues sought to be framed by the defendant were essential for adjudicating the Eviction Suit filed by the plaintiff.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

From the materials on record it appears that, the application under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC was filed by the defendant when the matter was fixed for evidence. The learned trial judge has recorded a finding that even otherwise also, the application under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC is liable to be rejected for the reason that the additional issue No. I can be decided by the issue No. VII framed earlier and similarly, issue Nos. II and III sought to be incorporated by filing application dated 10.4.2013 may be decided by the issues already framed, i.e., issue Nos. V and VI and thus, there was no necessity for framing additional issue. Moreover, the issue with respect to establishment of Seva Sadan Clinic which is sought to be incorporated by the defendant by filing application dated 10.4.2013 is not even relevant for the reason that the plea of personal necessity taken by the plaintiff cannot be confined to establishment of Seva Sadan Clinic. I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.