The Court held that in eviction proceedings, the bona fide requirement of the landlord is assessed as on the date of filing the eviction petition; subsequent acquisition of property during the pendency of the proceeding does not defeat such a claim. Reaffirms established precedent, confirming this as binding authority for rent matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/6327/2025 of JASPAL SINGH Vs BIMLA WATI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HER LRS |
| CNR | PHHC011440742025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 12-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within its jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established precedent |
| Type of Law | Rent Law / Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The rights of parties in eviction proceedings crystallise as on the date of filing the eviction petition. The requirement of bona fide need must be adjudicated based on circumstances prevailing at that time, and acquisition of new property by the landlord/landlord’s legal representatives during the litigation pendency does not ipso facto negate the original claim of bona fide requirement. Amendments to pleadings may be allowed to incorporate subsequent events only if necessary for effective adjudication, but not if made belatedly, in malafide, or in abuse of process, especially in the absence of due diligence. The Court distinguished judgments allowing late amendments where good faith and direct bearing were established, and held that in the present matter repeated, belated amendments intended to delay proceedings cannot be permitted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The principle that subsequent events may be incorporated only if due diligence exists and the event directly affects rights; the necessity of bona fide requirement to be tested at the petition filing date; and that acquisition of property during pendency does not defeat bona fide requirement—well established in rent law jurisprudence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Landlord filed eviction petition in 2019 on grounds including bona fide requirement for grandson. During proceedings, landlord died and grandson was impleaded. Tenant initially amended written statement to correct typographical errors, then filed further amendments including claim that the property was shamlat, both earlier and later dismissed. Tenant sought a third amendment to plead subsequent alleged facts that the grandson had secured possession of two shops. This was also dismissed by Rent Controller for lack of due diligence and as an attempt to delay. Revision petition was filed against this dismissal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court; Rent Controllers |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and fora dealing with similar Rent Act provisions |
| Follows | Rakesh Aggarwal and another v. Urmil Rani Khosla alias Urmil Rani 2025 (1) RCR (Rent) 312 |
| Distinguishes | Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and another 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 772; Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 662 (on factual applicability) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the principle that the landlord’s bona fide requirement under the Rent Act is determined as on the date of filing the eviction petition; subsequent property acquisition does not defeat bona fide need already pleaded.
- Clarifies that repeated and belated amendment applications—especially without due diligence and after prior amendments—amount to abuse of process and will not be entertained.
- Distinguishes cases where subsequent events were allowed to be pleaded through amendments, narrowing such allowance only to cases where bona fide and necessity are clearly established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court traced the general law on amendment of pleadings, reaffirming that amendments should further effective adjudication of real disputes, and can include subsequent events if material, but not if the application is belated, malafide, or repetitive without due diligence, specifically per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
- In rent matters, especially regarding the landlord’s bona fide requirement, the relevant time for determination is invariably the date of petition filing; the law does not require or allow subsequent acquisitions by the landlord to defeat such claim.
- The Court found that the tenant’s repeated and delayed efforts at amendment, especially when prior amendments were already allowed and dismissed on merits, reflect an intent to delay proceedings and amount to undue abuse of process of court.
- Precedents like Ashok Kumar and Gurnam Singh were distinguished as their facts involved genuine, necessary amendments, whereas here malafide and delay were evident. Rakesh Aggarwal was applied squarely to uphold this approach.
- The application was rightly rejected for absence of due diligence and for being the third such attempt, lacking any explanation for delay or necessity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Tenant):
- Argued that during the proceedings, new facts came to light—landlord’s grandson (claimed to be in bona fide need) had obtained possession of two other shops and was running a mobile business.
- Asserted that this development directly undermined the plea of bona fide requirement and necessitated amendment of the written statement to bring these facts on record.
- Reliance placed on Ashok Kumar v. Mohinder Pal Singh and Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan in support of allowing such subsequent events to be pleaded.
Respondent (Landlord/LRs):
- Submitted that there was no illegality or infirmity in the Rent Controller’s order dismissing the amendment application.
- Contended that the rights of parties crystallise on the date of filing the eviction petition, and that the law does not prevent the landlord from acquiring further immovable property during litigation.
- Cited Rakesh Aggarwal v. Urmil Rani Khosla, where it was held that satisfaction of bona fide requirement under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act is to be seen as of the date of filing petition.
- Further highlighted that this was the third amendment application by the tenant, evidencing an intent to delay proceedings.
Factual Background
The landlord instituted an eviction petition in 2019, seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop on grounds including bona fide requirement for his grandson. During litigation, the landlord passed away and the grandson was impleaded as legal representative. The tenant initially amended his written statement for typographical correction; later, his application to plead the property as shamlat land was dismissed. At a further stage, on allegedly discovering that the grandson had acquired two shops and was carrying out business there, the tenant filed a third amendment application to bring this subsequent development on record. The Rent Controller dismissed this application as belated and malafide, noting lack of due diligence and repetitive efforts to delay. The tenant challenged this rejection in revision before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC: The Court discussed the proviso, requiring that once trial has commenced, amendments can be allowed only if the party could not have raised the matter earlier despite due diligence. Due diligence and the prohibition on belated amendments were central to the decision.
- Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act: Requirement of bona fide need is to be determined on the date of filing the eviction petition; subsequent property acquisitions by the landlord or LRs during the pendency do not affect the claim.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and follows established law as laid out in earlier High Court decisions, notably Rakesh Aggarwal v. Urmil Rani Khosla.
- 🔄 Distinguishes – Clarifies the factual applicability of earlier cases (Ashok Kumar, Gurnam Singh) rather than overruling or following them blindly.