JASWANT KAUR & ANR. versus SUBHASH PALIWAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 15-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-... 
[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 481 
JASWANT KAUR & ANR. 
v. 
SUBHASH PALIWAL & ORS. 
(SLP (C) No. 3592 of 2006) 
DECEMBER 15, 2009 
481 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 6 r. 17 and 0. 41 r. 
A 
B 
' 27 - Application under - Maintainability of - Suit for eviction 
of tenant from shop room and recovery of rent by respondent 
no. 1 and 2-sons of original owner- Ground of bonafide need C 
of respondent no. 1 's son - Subsequently, application u/O. 11 
r. 12 and 14 seeking direction upon respondent no. 1 and 2 
to produce Will executed by their father - Case of tenant that 
shop room was bequeathed to respondent no. 2, thus 
respondent no. 1 not the owner and suit not maintainable -
D 
~Dismissal of application - Written statement by tenant but no 
averments made regarding Will, however admitted that 
respondents were their landlords - Decree in favour of 
respondents - During pendency of appeal, application u!O. 
6 r. 17 for amendment of written statement to incorporate the 
E 
plea regarding Will - Dismissal of application - Revisional 
application by tenant - Thereafter, tenant obtained certified 
copy of Will - Filing of applications u/O. 6 r. 17 and 0. 41 r. 
27 for amendment of written statement and to bring on record 
1 the certified copy of Will - Allowed by First Appellate Court -
F 
However, set aside by High Court - Special Leave Petition -
Held: High Court rightly entertained the appeals - Tenants 
admitted in their written statement that respondents were their 
landlords and they were paying rent for the shop to them, thus, 
could not resile from their admissions - More so, tenants were G 
fully aware of Will but did not mention the same in the written 
statement and only made application u/O. 11 r. 12 and 14 -
•Applications u/O. 6. r. 17 and 0. 41 r. 27 filed after a long 
delay - It was an attempt to introduce a new case by way of 
481 
H 
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A defence - Hence, Special Leave Petition dismissed - 0. 43 
r. 1(u) - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) 
Rent Act, 1950 - s. 3(iii), 13. 
Dondapati 
Narayana 
Reddy 
vs. 
Duggireddy 
B Venkatanarayana Reddy (2001) 8 SCC 115; Prem Bakshi 
and Ors. vs. Dharam Dev and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 2; Rajesh 
Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi (2006) 4 SCC 385; Andhra 
Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N. V. (2007) 6 SCC 167; Pandit 
lshwardas vs. State of M.P. (1979) 4 SCC 163; Harcharan vs. 
c State of Haryana (1982) 3 SCC 408, distinguished. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2001) 8 sec 115 
Distinguished. 
Para 7 
(2002) 2 sec 2 
Distinguished. 
Para 7 
D 
(2006) 4 sec 385 
Distinguished. 
Para 7 
(2007) 6 sec 167 
Distinguished. 
Para 7 
(1979) 4 sec 163 
Distinguished. 
Para 9 
E 
(1982) 3 sec 408 
Distinguished. 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 3592 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2005 of the High 
j 
~
F Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Misc. 
Appeal No. 600 of 2003. 
Shobha, Harish Sharma, Ramesh Pd. Yadav for the -
Petitioners. 
G 
S.K. Keshote, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Kr. Singhania, P. 
Chaturvedi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. One Bhavani Shankar, the father 
JASWANT KAUR & ANR. v. SUBHASH PALIWAL & 483 
ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 
of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Subhash Paliwal and Gopal 
A 
Paliwal, was the owner of several properties, including the 
disputed shop room. After his demise, on 3rd January, 1998, 
Subhash Paliwal and Gopal Paliwal filed a suit against the 
petitioners for their eviction from the shop room in question on 
the ground of personal necessity and bonafide necessity of 
B 
Sandeep, son of Subhash Paliwal, for his painting business. 
On 22nd July, 1998, the petitioners filed an application under 
Order XI Rules 12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 
for a direction upon the respondents to produce on record the 
Will said to have been executed by their late father, Bhavani c 
Shankar, on 21st July, 1989, whereby he was alleged to have 
bequeathed the disputed shop room to his younger son, Gopal 
Paliwal, thereby asserting that Subhash Paliwal was not the 
owner of the suit shop room and the suit for eviction for the 
bonafide need of his son was not, therefore, maintainable. 
D 
...i 
"' 
2. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the 
respective parties, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the said 
application. Subsequently, the petitio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.