SIDDALINGAMMA AND ANR. versus MAMTHA SHENOY

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 18-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SIDDALINGAMMA AND ANR. 
v. 
MAMTHA SHENOY 
OCTOBER 18, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Evcition: 
Karnataka Rent Contol Act, 1961 : Section 21(1 )(h). 
Eviction-Eviction Petition-Bona fide requirement-Held: Rent Con-
trol Legislation generally leans in favour of tenant-However, landlord is 
treated with some sympathy in the case of eviction of tenant on ground of bona 
fide requirement. 
/ 
· 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 6, Rule 17-Amendment-Effect of-Held: On the doctrine of 
relation back the petition as amended is deemed to have been .filed originally 
as such-Hence, evidence has to be appreciated in the light of averments made 
in the amended petition. 
The appellant No. 1 - landlady filed an eviction petition under Sec-
tion 2l(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 against the re-
spondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. 
In the petition it was pleaded that the suit premises was required mainly 
for facilitating the treatment of first appellant's husband. However, during 
the pendency of the suit, first appellant's husband expired. The petition for 
eviction was amended under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, 1908 whereby it was pleaded that appellant No. 1 herself was not 
keeping well and that the suit premises was required for facilitating her 
.G 
treatment. The trial court allowed the eviction petition. However, High 
Court allowed the revision petitoin filed by the respondent on the ground 
that the first appellant's husband, whose sickness and need for treatment 
was the principal cause pleaded in the eviction petition, having expired, the 
cause had ceased to exist during the pendency of the petition. Hence this 
H 
appeal; 
SIDDALINGAMMA v. MAMTHA SHENOY 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
367 
HELD : 1. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of 
tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the 
ground of bona fide requirement of !andlord for his own occupation or use 
of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sym-
pathy. [370-F] 
Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, [1999] 6 SCC 222 and 
Deena Nath v. Pooran La.l, [2001] 5 SCC 705, relied on. 
A 
B 
2.1. It is true that in the petition for eviction, as originally filed, the 
health condition of the landlady herself was not pleaded, nevertheless 
C 
evidence was allowed to be let in without objection and was recorded by 
the Trial Court. An application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was moved and the deficiency in the 
pleadings stood removed by the amendment permitted by the Trial Court 
in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to do so. On the doctrine of 
D 
relation back, which generally governs amendment of pleadings unless for 
reasons the Court excludes the applicability of the doctrine in a given case, 
the petition for eviction as amended would be deemed to have been filed 
originally as such and the evidence shall have to be appreciated in the light 
of averments made in the amended petition. [371-G-H; 372-A] 
2.2. The need of the appellant No. 1 • landlady is, as borne out from 
the amended pleadings and material brought on record, bona fide and not 
arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. In a civil case, once an amendment has 
been unreservedly permitted to be incorporated in the pleadings, the cor-
rectness of the facts introduced by the amendment cannot be doubted 
solely on the ground that they were not stated in the original petition. So 
also genuineness of the landlady's statement that she needed to have treat-
ment cannot be doubted by the Court forming an opinion that the ill-
health of the landlady was not so serious as to warrant her shifting to a city 
from a village and then substituting its opinion for the seriousness felt by 
the landlady. The requirement pleaded and proved was neither·a pretext 
nor a ruse adopted by the landlady for evicting the te.nant. [372-F -G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7292 of 2001. · 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.2001 of the Karnataka High 
E 
F 
G 
Court in H.R.R.P. No. 504 of 1997. 
H 
l· ' 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Joseph Pookkatt and Prashant Kumar for the Appellants. 
Gaurav Agarwal and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
,_ 
B 
R.C. L

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.