Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Head Master of Progressive Education Society's Urdu High School, Solapur, was the original tenant in a suit filed by the respondent-landlady Smt. Anwarbi Sikandar Shaikh under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1971 (Bombay Rent Act). The respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the trial court by order dated 5/1/1993. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the proposed amendment sought to add a ground under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act regarding acquisition of suitable accommodation by the tenant, but that provision is available only for residential purposes and not for non-residential occupation. Since the present case concerned non-residential premises, the amendment ought not to have been allowed. The Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, observed that the amendment application filed by the respondent did not make any reference to Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The contents of the amendment application, though revolving around the concept of suitable accommodation, did not specifically invoke that provision. Considering the limited scope of Article 227, the Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order. The petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1971, Section 13(1)(l) - The petitioner-tenant challenged the order allowing amendment of plaint to add ground of acquisition of suitable accommodation by tenant. The Court declined to interfere under Article 227 as the amendment application did not specifically refer to Section 13(1)(l) and the contents were not clearly barred. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order allowing amendment of plaint to incorporate ground of acquisition of suitable accommodation by tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act should be interfered with under Article 227, given that the premises are non-residential and the provision applies only to residential premises.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Amendment application
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act
- 1971
- Section 13(1)(l)
- non-residential premises
- suitable accommodation
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 209
Writ Petition No. 2664 of 1993
Mr. G.R. Agarwal with Mr. R.M. Agarwal for the petitioner; None for the respondent
The Head Master, The Progressive Education Society's Urdu High School, Solapur
Smt. Anwarbi Sikandar Shaikh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order allowing amendment of plaint in a suit under Bombay Rent Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (original tenant) sought to quash the order dated 5/1/1993 allowing the respondent's amendment application.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the amendment sought to add a ground under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act which applies only to residential premises, whereas the suit premises are non-residential.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the amendment application by order dated 5/1/1993.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing amendment of plaint to incorporate ground of acquisition of suitable accommodation by tenant under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act should be interfered with under Article 227, given that the premises are non-residential and the provision applies only to residential premises.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the proposed amendment added a ground under Section 13(1)(l) of Bombay Rent Act about acquisition of suitable accommodation by tenant, but that provision is available only for residential purpose and not for non-residential occupation. Therefore, the amendment ought not to have been allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined to interfere under Article 227 because the amendment application did not specifically refer to Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The contents of the amendment application, though revolving around suitable accommodation, did not expressly invoke that provision. Therefore, the trial court's order allowing amendment was not interfered with.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present petition, the original tenant has challenged the order dated 5/1/1993, whereby the respondent-original plaintiff's an application for the amendment was allowed.
Considering the scope of the Article 227 of the Constitution of Indian, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge, allowing the amendment application in spit of the above objection.
There is no such reference made of section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act in the amendment application filed by the respondent.
Procedural History
The respondent-original plaintiff filed a suit under Bombay Rent Act. The respondent filed an amendment application which was allowed by the trial court on 5/1/1993. The petitioner-original tenant challenged that order by filing Writ Petition No. 2664 of 1993 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1971: Section 13(1)(l)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
