A landlord may be permitted to take benefit of subsequent events after filing of an eviction petition which buttress the landlord’s claim of bonafide need

The Delhi High Court reiterated that the landlord may be allowed to amend his eviction petition under the DRC Act to include events which occur post filing of an eviction petition and do not create a fresh cause of action but support and strengthen the existing cause of action on the basis of which the original eviction petition had been filed.

The above ratio was delivered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Kashi Ram vs. Anita Garg, CM (M) 1376/2019 decided on 18.09.2019.

Challenge

An eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was filed by the Respondent/Landlady which was at the stage of recording of evidence. During the time of recording of evidence, the Landlady sought to amend the petition to bring on record subsequent facts including the fact that her son wishes to join her business of fabric and tailoring. The amendment was allowed by the ARC vide the impugned order.

It was submitted by the Tenant that the addition of these facts, in fact, constituted a new cause of action which falls outside the scope of the original petition filed by the Landlady. Initially the Landlady had claimed that she requires the premises for her own business. It was therefore, contended that addition of a cause of action is not permissible in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

Held

The Delhi High Court discussed the existing law on the issue held that the facts sought to be brought on record did not create a fresh cause of action but supported and strengthened the existing cause of action on the basis of which the original eviction petition had been filed. The Court further held that in rent control matters, where the leave to defend has been granted and the matter is pending, it is common for facts to arise during the pendency of the petition, which may strengthen the already filed eviction petition in favour of the Landlord. Such facts cannot be relegated to fresh eviction petitions, leading to multiplicity of proceedings. So long as there is adequate notice of the facts sought to be pleaded in the amendment, subsequent events and facts ought to be permitted to be brought on record.

The Court also took notice of the judgement of Gurcharan Singh v. R. N. Chaudhary, (1982) 21 DLT 477 wherein subsequent facts were permitted to be brought on record by means of an affidavit. In view of the said legal position, the Court affirmed the impugned order.