HASMAT RAJ & ANR. versus RAGHUNATH PRASAD

HASMAT RAJ & ANR. versus RAGHUNATH PRASAD

The landlord's acquisition of possession of a major portion of the building should be considered; subsequent events after institution of suit may be brought to the court's attention in appeal. Refusal of amendment of written statement was wrongly based on delay and latches; amendment should be permitted to consider whether landlord has reasonably suitable accommodation under section 12(1)(f).

Parties
Appellant: Hasmat Raj; Respondent: Raghunath Prasad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Judgment in Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed, matter remanded to first appellate court
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bona Fide Requirement, Amendment of Pleadings, Rent Control
Landlord Tenant Civil Procedure Eviction Bona Fide Requirement Amendment of Pleadings Rent Control

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hasmat Raj

Appellant

Raghunath Prasad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against High Court Judgment in Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord's acquisition of possession of another portion in the building amounts to having a reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether refusal of leave to amend written statement was proper under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code
  3. 3 Whether subsequent events regarding possession should be considered in eviction proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's acquisition of possession of a major portion of the building should be considered; subsequent events after institution of suit may be brought to the court's attention in appeal. Refusal of amendment of written statement was wrongly based on delay and latches; amendment should be permitted to consider whether landlord has reasonably suitable accommodation under section 12(1)(f).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, matter remanded to first appellate court

Orders

  • Appellants permitted to amend written statement as sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
  • Parties allowed to lead consequential evidence