9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of amendment application for ejectment grounds in a possession suit. 2. Requirement of leave from winding up court under Companies Act for amendment application. 3. Determination of cause of action in a suit for eviction against a tenant. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves a revision application against the rejection of an amendment application in a possession suit for ejectment grounds. The petitioners sought to add new grounds for ejectment and include permitted increases in their money claim. The trial court initially rejected the application based on various objections raised by the respondents, including the change in the nature of the suit and potential prejudice caused by introducing new grounds of ejectment constituting a new cause of action. However, the trial judge failed to consider the validity of the objections and wrongly refused the application based on the requirement of leave from the winding up court under the Companies Act. 2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of the Companies Act regarding the necessity of obtaining leave from the winding up court for amendments in legal proceedings against a company under winding up. The court examines the provisions of section 446(1) of the Companies Act, emphasizing that once leave is granted for commencing or proceeding with a suit, subsequent applications in the progress of the legal proceedings, such as an amendment application, do not require fresh leave. The court highlights the importance of not construing the term "other legal proceeding" narrowly and clarifies that amendments like adding grounds for ejectment do not mandate fresh leave from the winding up court. 3. The judgment extensively discusses the determination of cause of action in a suit for eviction against a tenant. It clarifies that the grounds for ejectment, although crucial in eviction suits, do not form part of the cause of action. The court explains that the cause of action arises from the termination of tenancy, and the grounds for eviction are anticipatory in nature to demonstrate the removal of impediments in the way of the landlord recovering possession. By citing relevant case law and previous judgments, the court establishes that adding new grounds for ejectment does not alter the nature of the suit or create a new cause of action, thereby not requiring fresh leave from the winding up court. In conclusion, the judgment sets aside the trial court's order, allowing the petitioners' application for amendment in the possession suit. The court emphasizes that the nature of the suit remains unchanged, and the addition of grounds for ejectment does not necessitate fresh leave under the Companies Act. The detailed analysis provided in the judgment ensures a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles applied in the context of the issues raised.
|
