Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendants in an eviction suit, challenged the order of the Trial Court allowing amendment of the plaint and the Appellate Court's dismissal of their appeal as not maintainable. The respondent/plaintiff had filed Eviction Suit No.272/5824 of 2004 seeking eviction of the petitioners from suit premises let out under a writing dated 28th May 1994. The suit was based on breach of tenancy terms, specifically sub-letting to a third party in 2002 and erection of permanent structure without consent. In 2019, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to incorporate subsequent events of further sub-letting and construction. The Trial Court allowed the amendment vide order dated 2nd December 2019. The petitioners' appeal against this order was dismissed by the Appellate Bench as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227. The High Court examined whether the amendment was permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It held that the amendment related to the same cause of action and did not introduce a new cause of action, as the grounds of sub-letting and permanent structure were already pleaded. The amendment merely clarified and updated the facts. The Court noted that limitation is not a bar when the amendment is based on the same cause of action. It also held that the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, but since the High Court was exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, it could examine the correctness of the Trial Court's order. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment, finding no prejudice to the defendants. The petition was dismissed, and the amendment was allowed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Subsequent Events - Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Amendment sought to incorporate events of sub-letting and permanent structure erection occurring after filing of suit - Held that amendment relating to same cause of action is permissible even if it relates to subsequent events, as it does not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action - Limitation not a bar when amendment is based on same cause of action (Paras 8-12). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Sub-letting and Permanent Structure - Section 16(1)(e) Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Plaintiff sought eviction on grounds of sub-letting and unauthorized construction - Amendment to include details of subsequent sub-letting and construction - Held that such amendment is necessary for effective adjudication and does not prejudice defendants (Paras 13-15). C) Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Maintainability of Appeal - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Appellate Court dismissed appeal as not maintainable - Held that High Court under Article 227 can examine correctness of order allowing amendment - Petition allowed and order of Trial Court upheld (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent events of sub-letting and permanent structure erection, and whether the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of plaint. The amendment is permitted to proceed.
Law Points
- Amendment of plaint
- subsequent events
- same cause of action
- limitation
- Article 227
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999 Section 16(1)(e)
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
