# Mahboob Saifi v. Vimal Kumar Jain

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 729
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-30
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3264 of 2026
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahboob-saifi-v-vimal-kumar-jain-54291
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

3 All. Mahboob Saifi Vs. Vimal Kumar Jain
729
primarily on the touchstone of the welfare of the minor. The remedy under the Guardianship and
Wards Act as well as Family Courts Act is available, and the Court is competent to adjudicate such
disputes, keeping in view both personal law principles and the welfare of the child.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that custody of a minor child cannot be
determined in a mechanical manner without arriving at a definite conclusion regarding the welfare
of the child, which is the paramount consideration. Such an evaluation necessarily requires
appreciation of evidence, interaction with the parties, and a comprehensive inquiry into all relevant
circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor.

13. Such an exercise is not feasible in proceedings under a writ of habeas corpus, which are
summary in nature and not intended for detailed adjudication of disputed questions relating to
custody. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the petitioner no.1 to avail the remedy before the
competent Family Court, which is duly empowered to examine all aspects relating to guardianship
and custody and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

14. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 729
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3264 of 2026

Mahboob Saifi ...Petitioner
Versus
Vimal Kumar Jain ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
on the ground of lack of due diligence, absence of necessity for effective adjudication of the controversy and
on the premise that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the controversy; whether the alleged
subsequent event, namely, the letting out of an adjoining shop during the pendency of the appeal, can be
permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment, and if so, to what extent it bears upon the issue of
bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; and whether the proposed
amendment, in the facts of the present case, was liable to be rejected as belated and as an attempt to delay
the proceedings, or whether it constitutes a material development necessary for complete and effective
adjudication.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order VI Rule 17-
The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972- Section
21(1) (a)- The amendment application has admittedly been filed at a highly belated stage when
the appeal was ripe for final arguments. The petitioner has failed to furnish any cogent or
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfactory explanation as to why the alleged facts could not have been brought on record
earlier. A mere assertion of subsequent knowledge, unaccompanied by particulars of when and
how such knowledge was acquired or what steps were taken thereafter, does not meet the
threshold of due diligence contemplated under the proviso- Tenants cannot be permitted to take
advantage of delays inherent in the judicial process by relying upon intervening events to defeat
an otherwise established bona fide requirement. Permitting such a course would not only defeat
substantive justice but also encourage dilatory tactics.

Held- An amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, sought at the appellate stage on the basis of alleged
subsequent events in a rent control proceeding founded on bona fide requirement, cannot be permitted as a
matter of course. Once trial has commenced, the party seeking amendment must satisfy the mandatory
requirement of due diligence by demonstrating that the facts could not have been brought on record earlier
despite reasonable efforts. Further, subsequent developments can be taken into consideration only when they
are clear, conclusive, and of such magnitude as to wholly displace or render non-existent the original need;
disputed or inconclusive facts do not meet this threshold. In essence, a belated amendment on disputed
subsequent events, sans due diligence, cannot reopen the lis or defeat the bona fide need unless it eclipses or
extinguishes the same. An amendment introducing such belated and contested pleas, particularly when the
matter is ripe for final arguments, and which would enlarge the scope of the lis or necessitate reopening of
issues, is liable to be rejected. The refusal of the appellate court, therefore, reflects a sound and judicious
exercise of discretion, calling for no interference. Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust (2005) 2 SCC 476; M/s J.A. Construction v. Sardar
Kuldeep Singh 2019 SCCOnline All 4844 ; Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit 2013 AIR (SC)
3188; Zamil Ahmad v. Mohd. Zeeshan 2011(1) ARC 817; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC
604; Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand (2008) 5 SCC 117; J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh (2012) 2
SCC 300; Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswami and Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84; M. Revanna v.
Anjanamma (2019) 4 SCC 332; Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770;
Vijay Hathising Shah v. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi (2019) 9 SCC 1; Patterson v. State of Alabama 294 US
600 (1935); Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCC 103; Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram 1992 Supp (2)
SCC 623; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972

List of Keywords
Order 6 Rule 17; Due diligence; Subsequent developments can be taken into consideration; When they are
clear, conclusive; Such magnitude as to wholly displace or render non-existent the original need; Subsequent
events, sans due diligence, cannot reopen the lis or defeat the bona fide need

Case Arising From
Order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasganj in Rent Appeal No.16 of 2023, whereby
the amendment application preferred by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Kishan, Vipin Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aarushi Birla, Utkarsh Birla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)
3 All. Mahboob Saifi Vs. Vimal Kumar Jain
731

Heard Sri Jai Kishan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing along with Sri Utkarsh Birla and Ms Aarushi Birla, for the respondent.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the
petitioner-tenant assailing the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasganj
in Rent Appeal No.16 of 2023, whereby the amendment application preferred by the petitioner
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

3. The facts, as borne out from the pleadings on record, indicate that the petitioner-tenant was
inducted into the disputed shop situated at Mohalla Nathuram, Laxmiganj, Kasganj in the year
1983 by the father of the respondent-landlord on a monthly rent of ₹1510/-. Since then, the
petitioner has been carrying on the business of welding and iron work from the said premises and
claims to have regularly paid rent.

4. The respondent-landlord, asserting his ownership over the premises, instituted P.A. Case
No.05 of 2019 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop on the
ground of bona fide requirement, namely, for establishing his son in an independent business.

5. It is further pleaded by the respondent that the disputed shop is old and in a dilapidated
condition and requires reconstruction along with an adjoining portion so as to facilitate a suitable
commercial establishment for his son. The petitioner, however, contested the release application by
disputing the alleged bona fide need and asserting that the respondent's son was already engaged in
gainful employment/business and that the shop in question was neither dilapidated nor required for
the purpose stated.

6. The record further discloses that the Prescribed Authority, upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the release application vide judgment dated 31.07.2023, holding
that the bona fide need of the landlord stood established and that the comparative hardship tilted in
his favour. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 16 of 2023 before the
District Judge, Kasganj.

7. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement on the basis of certain alleged
subsequent events. The principal ground taken was that the respondent had, in the meantime, let out
an adjoining shop to one Sunny Qureshi for carrying on a similar business, which, according to the
petitioner, negated and extinguished the plea of bona fide requirement. The petitioner also sought
to incorporate allegations regarding damage to the shop and obstruction in effecting repairs.

8. The respondent opposed the amendment application by filing objections supported by
affidavits, denying the existence of any such tenancy and asserting that the adjoining portion
continued to remain in his possession for the purpose of reconstruction. It was further contended
that the proposed amendment was belated, factually incorrect, and intended only to protract the
proceedings.
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The appellate court, upon consideration of the rival submissions, rejected the amendment
application vide order dated 22.01.2026, holding that the proposed amendment was neither
necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy nor supported by due diligence, and
appeared to be an afterthought that would have effect of altering the nature of controversy.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought is founded on
subsequent events which have a direct and material bearing on the issue of bona fide requirement
of the landlord and are, therefore, essential for an effective and complete adjudication of the
dispute. It is contended that the appellate court has erred in rejecting the amendment application in
a mechanical manner without due consideration of the fact that the respondent-landlord had
allegedly inducted a new tenant in an adjoining shop, thereby undermining the very basis of the
plea of bona fide need.

11. Placing reliance upon Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, it is
urged that though the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC circumscribes the power to allow
amendments after commencement of trial, it does not impose an absolute bar. An amendment, it is
submitted, may still be permitted where it is necessary for determining the real controversy
between the parties and where due diligence is established.

12. It is further submitted that the petitioner, upon acquiring knowledge that the respondentlandlord had inducted one Sanni Qureshi as a tenant in the adjoining shop, promptly moved the
amendment application. According to the petitioner, the said development constitutes a subsequent
event which materially impacts, and indeed dislodges, the plea of bona fide requirement set up by
the respondent.

13. It is lastly contended that rejection of the amendment application would result in
multiplicity of proceedings and would preclude the Court from adjudicating the real controversy in
its entirety, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amendment application has
been rightly rejected as being highly belated, lacking in due diligence, and founded on incorrect
and disputed facts. It is contended that the application was moved at the stage of final arguments in
the appeal with the sole object of delaying the proceedings and protracting the litigation.

15. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed upon M/s J.A.
Construction v. Sardar Kuldeep Singh, to contend that once trial has commenced, amendment of
pleadings cannot be permitted as a matter of course and is subject to strict compliance with the
requirement of due diligence, which, according to the respondent, has not been satisfied in the
present case.

16. Further reliance has been placed upon Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha
Maryadit v. Usman Habib Dhuka and Zamil Ahmad v. Mohd. Zeeshan to submit that
amendments sought at a belated stage, without satisfactory explanation and founded on
3 All. Mahboob Saifi Vs. Vimal Kumar Jain
733
afterthoughts, are not liable to be allowed, particularly where they tend to delay adjudication or
alter the nature of the controversy. It is urged that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the due
diligence mandated by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

17. It is further submitted that the alleged subsequent event is factually incorrect and has been
specifically denied. According to the respondent, the adjoining portion has not been let out to any
third party and continues to remain in his possession for the purpose of reconstruction along with
the disputed shop so as to establish the business of his son.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep
Srivastava5, to contend that subsequent events cannot be permitted to defeat an already established
bona fide requirement unless such events are of a nature that they wholly eclipse the need pleaded,
which, it is submitted, is not the situation in the present case.

19. On the aforesaid premises, it is submitted that the amendment application has been rightly
rejected by the appellate court and no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record,
this Court finds that the controversy in the present petition centres around the legality and propriety
of the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the appellate court rejecting the petitioner's application
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and the impact of the alleged subsequent events sought to be
introduced by way of such amendment on the issue of bona fide requirement set up by the
respondent-landlord.

21. In the aforesaid backdrop, the following questions arise for consideration: whether the
appellate court was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
on the ground of lack of due diligence, absence of necessity for effective adjudication of the
controversy and on the premise that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the
controversy; whether the alleged subsequent event, namely, the letting out of an adjoining shop
during the pendency of the appeal, can be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment,
and if so, to what extent it bears upon the issue of bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; and whether the proposed amendment, in the facts of the present case,
was liable to be rejected as belated and as an attempt to delay the proceedings, or whether it
constitutes a material development necessary for complete and effective adjudication.

22. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC postulates that once the trial has commenced, no
amendment shall ordinarily be allowed unless the Court is satisfied that, despite due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. The expression "due
diligence" has been understood to mean such reasonable, careful and persistent effort as is expected
of a prudent litigant. It casts a definite burden upon the party seeking amendment to demonstrate
bona fide conduct and promptness in placing all material facts before the Court.

23. In Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, the object of the proviso was
explained by holding that though the power to allow amendment is wide, the same stands
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumscribed after commencement of trial so as to prevent delay and avoid surprise. It was
observed that the proviso was introduced to curb belated applications and ensure expeditious
disposal of cases, while still preserving the Court's discretion to permit amendment in exceptional
circumstances where due diligence is duly established. The question of due diligence, it was
emphasised, is inherently a question of fact.

24. The principles were further elaborated in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, wherein it was held
that the requirement of due diligence is mandatory and cannot be diluted. The Supreme Court
observed that due diligence necessarily implies reasonable investigation and effort on the part of
the litigant prior to seeking amendment, and that the party must establish that the facts sought to be
introduced were not within its knowledge despite such efforts. The proviso, thus, strikes a balance
between adjudication on merits and the need to prevent abuse of process and protraction of
proceedings.

25. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswami and Sons, the Supreme Court
laid down guiding factors for adjudicating amendment applications, inter alia, whether the
amendment is imperative for proper adjudication, whether it is bona fide, whether it would cause
prejudice to the opposite party, and whether it would fundamentally alter the nature and character
of the case. It was also cautioned that amendments which are mala fide, unnecessary, or intended to
delay proceedings ought not to be permitted.

26. In M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, it was reiterated that after commencement of trial, the
burden squarely lies upon the party seeking amendment to establish due diligence, and that
amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court further cautioned that amendments
introducing a new or inconsistent case, or altering the fundamental character of the proceedings, are
liable to be rejected.

27. Similarly, in Vijay Hathising Shah v. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi , it was held that
an amendment application filed at a highly belated stage, particularly when the matter is fixed for
final arguments, deserves rejection if it is not necessary for determining the real issues in
controversy. It was observed that where the lis can be effectively adjudicated without the proposed
amendment, the same ought not to be allowed, especially when it would result in delay of the
proceedings.

28. A distinct yet equally significant issue arising for consideration in the present case pertains
to the effect of alleged subsequent events on the bona fide requirement of the landlord, which
constitutes the substratum of the release application. The petitioner seeks to introduce such
developments by way of amendment with the object of demonstrating that the need set up by the
respondent-landlord no longer subsists. It, therefore, becomes necessary to examine the legal
principles governing the relevance and impact of subsequent events in rent control proceedings.

29. The law relating to consideration of subsequent events is well settled. In Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, the Supreme Court authoritatively held that
though the right to relief is ordinarily to be adjudged on the date of institution of proceedings,
courts are not precluded from taking note of subsequent developments which have a fundamental
3 All. Mahboob Saifi Vs. Vimal Kumar Jain
735
impact on the relief claimed. It was emphasised that procedure is a handmaid of justice and cannot
be applied in a rigid manner so as to defeat substantive rights. At the same time, such power is
conditioned upon the requirement that the subsequent event must be brought on record with due
diligence and must have a direct and material bearing on the entitlement to relief.

30. The aforesaid principle also recognises that an appellate court, being vested with the
jurisdiction of re-hearing, is equally competent to take into account subsequent developments for
the purpose of moulding relief, provided that such exercise is consistent with fairness to both
parties and does not result in prejudice.

31. A similar exposition is discernible from Patterson v. State of Alabama, wherein it was
observed that an appellate court is not confined merely to correcting errors in the judgment under
challenge but is empowered to mould the relief in a manner that subserves the ends of justice. For
this purpose, the Court may take into consideration supervening changes in fact or law having a
bearing on the ultimate outcome, while ensuring that procedural rules are not applied in a rigid or
mechanical manner so as to defeat justice.

32. In the context of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, the principle has been
further clarified in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, wherein it was held that the requirement
pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of institution of the proceedings but must
also subsist till the final decree. It was further held that if, during the pendency of proceedings,
events occur which wholly satisfy or completely eclipse the landlord's requirement, the Court
would be justified in taking note of such developments.

33. The general rule, along with its exception, was succinctly reiterated in Ramesh Kumar v.
Kesho Ram, wherein it was held that while rights are ordinarily determined with reference to the
commencement of the lis, the Court is not precluded from taking "cautious cognizance" of
subsequent events which have a material bearing on the entitlement to relief or the manner of
moulding it.

34. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid authorities is that though subsequent events may be
taken into consideration, such power is circumscribed and must be exercised with caution. Only
those developments which have a direct, material, and decisive bearing on the relief claimed, and
which are brought on record with due diligence, can be considered.

35. Insofar as determination of bona fide requirement is concerned, it is well settled that the
crucial date for adjudging such need is the date of institution of the eviction proceedings. In Gaya
Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, the Supreme Court held that if every subsequent development
during the pendency of litigation were to be taken into account, there would be no finality to such
proceedings, particularly in view of inherent delays in the judicial process.

36. The Court further cautioned that during the prolonged pendency of litigation, it would be
unrealistic to expect the landlord or his family members to remain idle. Any temporary
arrangement or engagement undertaken during such period cannot be construed as extinguishing
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the original need. The Court, in a felicitous expression, observed that the need may gather "dust" or
"patina" over time, yet it does not cease to exist.

37. The Supreme Court also highlighted that permitting subsequent events to defeat an
otherwise valid cause of action, particularly where delay is systemic, would undermine the
confidence of litigants in the judicial process and render the remedy illusory.

38. The legal position that thus emerges is that while bona fide requirement is to be assessed
with reference to the date of institution of proceedings, it must also subsist till final adjudication.
However, subsequent events can be taken into consideration only when they are of such a
conclusive and decisive nature as to wholly satisfy or completely eclipse the original need. In the
absence of such circumstances, the original requirement cannot be permitted to be defeated on the
basis of developments which are merely incidental, temporary, or inconclusive.

39. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that the amendment application has been filed
at the appellate stage when the matter was ripe for final arguments. The petitioner seeks to
introduce certain alleged subsequent events; however, no satisfactory explanation has been
furnished to demonstrate that, despite due diligence, such facts could not have been brought on
record earlier. A bald assertion of subsequent knowledge, without disclosing the circumstances in
which such knowledge was acquired or the steps taken thereafter, falls short of the requirement of
"due diligence" as mandated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

40. Moreover, the proposed amendment seeks to introduce disputed questions of fact relating
to the alleged conduct of the respondent and the subsistence of bona fide need. These facts are
neither admitted nor self-evident. Permitting such an amendment would necessarily entail
reopening of issues and leading of further evidence, thereby enlarging the scope of the lis and
fundamentally altering the character of the proceedings. This course is impermissible in law.

41. The timing of the application-at the stage of final arguments-further lends credence to the
conclusion that the amendment is an afterthought intended to delay the proceedings. Belated
amendments of this nature, when not indispensable for determining the real controversy, are liable
to be rejected.

42. Even otherwise, the alleged subsequent event, namely, the induction of a tenant in an
adjoining shop, is a seriously disputed fact and does not, on its face, constitute a development of
such a conclusive or determinative nature as to wholly eclipse the bona fide requirement set up by
the landlord. The law, as noticed hereinabove, permits consideration of subsequent events only
when they are clear, unimpeachable, and of such magnitude as to completely satisfy or extinguish
the original need. The plea raised by the petitioner falls short of this threshold.

43. It must also be borne in mind that if every alleged or disputed development during the
pendency of proceedings is permitted to be introduced at a belated stage, it would render the
adjudicatory process interminable and defeat the very objective of finality. Such an approach would
enable a party to defeat a legitimate claim by prolonging the lis and introducing shifting stands,
which the law does not countenance.
3 All. Mahboob Saifi Vs. Vimal Kumar Jain
737

44. From the foregoing discussion, the following legal principles emerge governing the
consideration of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to bring on record subsequent
developments in a rent control proceeding founded on the ground of bona fide requirement:

44.1. Subsequent developments may be permitted to be brought on record by way of
amendment only where such events have a direct, material, and determinative bearing on the
subsistence or continuance of the bona fide requirement pleaded by the landlord, and are necessary
for effective adjudication of the real controversy.

44.2. Where such an application is filed after commencement of trial, the party seeking
amendment must satisfy the mandatory requirement of "due diligence" by demonstrating that,
despite reasonable and bona fide efforts, the facts now sought to be introduced, affecting the
landlord's need, could not have been pleaded earlier.

44.3. The stage at which the amendment is sought assumes particular significance;
amendments moved at a highly belated stage, especially when the matter is ripe for final
arguments, are to be viewed with circumspection, as they have the potential to unsettle findings
already recorded on bona fide need, and are ordinarily liable to be declined in the absence of
compelling justification.

44.4. Subsequent events cannot be permitted to be introduced where they rest on disputed or
unverified assertions regarding the conduct of the landlord, or on developments which are
inconclusive and do not substantially or decisively impinge upon the genuineness of the need
pleaded.

44.5. Only those subsequent developments which are of such a conclusive and decisive
character as to wholly satisfy, eclipse, or extinguish the bona fide requirement originally set up can
be taken into consideration; incidental, temporary, or ambiguous developments are insufficient for
this purpose.

44.6. The Court must ensure that permitting such amendment does not result in reopening of
issues already adjudicated on bona fide requirement, or in enlarging the scope of the lis by
introducing fresh factual controversies requiring additional evidence, thereby delaying final
adjudication.

44.7. The power to take note of subsequent developments affecting bona fide need is
essentially discretionary and must be exercised with caution, so as to balance the need to render a
just and realistic decision with the imperative of preventing abuse of process by raising shifting or
belated pleas.

45. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the subsequent event sought to be
introduced by the petitioner, namely, the alleged letting out of an adjoining shop to a third party,
even if assumed arguendo, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the bona fide requirement
of the landlord stands extinguished. The respondent has specifically controverted the said allegation
and asserted that no such tenancy has been created and that the adjoining portion is intended to be
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amalgamated with the disputed premises for establishing a composite commercial unit for his son's
business.

46. The amendment sought is governed by Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which, though enabling
amendment at any stage, stands significantly curtailed by its proviso once the trial has commenced.
In such a situation, the party seeking amendment must satisfy the mandatory requirement of "due
diligence."

47. In the present case, the amendment application has admittedly been filed at a highly
belated stage when the appeal was ripe for final arguments. The petitioner has failed to furnish any
cogent or satisfactory explanation as to why the alleged facts could not have been brought on
record earlier. A mere assertion of subsequent knowledge, unaccompanied by particulars of when
and how such knowledge was acquired or what steps were taken thereafter, does not meet the
threshold of due diligence contemplated under the proviso.

48. The timing of the application further reinforces the inference that the amendment is an
afterthought intended to delay the proceedings. It is a cardinal principle that amendments at the
appellate stage, particularly when the matter is at the stage of final hearing, are not to be permitted
as a matter of course and must be supported by compelling reasons, which are conspicuously
absent in the present case.

49. The proposed amendment seeks to introduce disputed and contested questions of fact
relating to the alleged conduct of the respondent and the subsistence of his bona fide need. Such
pleas are neither admitted nor self-evident and would necessarily require reopening of issues and
leading of additional evidence. This would not only enlarge the scope of the lis but also
fundamentally alter the character of the proceedings, which is impermissible at this stage.

50. It is equally pertinent that the appeal essentially calls for examination of the correctness of
the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the issues of bona fide requirement and
comparative hardship. The proposed amendment is not indispensable for adjudication of these
issues and, therefore, does not satisfy the test of necessity for determining the real controversy.

51. Even otherwise, the law does not envisage that every alleged or disputed subsequent
development should be permitted to unsettle a finding of bona fide need. Only such events which
are clear, conclusive, and of such magnitude as to wholly eclipse the original requirement can be
taken into consideration. The plea raised by the petitioner falls far short of this standard.

52. The contention that temporary or partial utilisation of some adjoining space would negate
the bona fide need is equally untenable. It is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his
requirement and is entitled to seek premises suitable for his intended purpose. A makeshift or
inadequate arrangement cannot be equated with availability of suitable alternative accommodation.

53. This Court also cannot lose sight of the principle that tenants cannot be permitted to take
advantage of delays inherent in the judicial process by relying upon intervening events to defeat an
3 All. Mahboob Saifi Vs. Vimal Kumar Jain
739
otherwise established bona fide requirement. Permitting such a course would not only defeat
substantive justice but also encourage dilatory tactics.

54. In the considered view of this Court, the alleged subsequent events, even if taken at their
highest, neither eclipse the subsisting requirement nor render the original cause of action
infructuous. Consequently, the plea founded on such developments does not merit acceptance, nor
does it justify the belated amendment sought.

55. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardar Dastur
Schools Trust is misplaced, as the said decision arose in the context of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
and does not advance the petitioner's case in the present factual matrix.

56. The submission regarding avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings also does not
commend acceptance. While the said consideration is relevant, it cannot be invoked to permit
amendments which are otherwise belated, lacking in due diligence, and liable to protract the
proceedings.

57. An amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, sought at the appellate stage on the basis of
alleged subsequent events in a rent control proceeding founded on bona fide requirement, cannot be
permitted as a matter of course. Once trial has commenced, the party seeking amendment must
satisfy the mandatory requirement of due diligence by demonstrating that the facts could not have
been brought on record earlier despite reasonable efforts. Further, subsequent developments can be
taken into consideration only when they are clear, conclusive, and of such magnitude as to wholly
displace or render non-existent the original need; disputed or inconclusive facts do not meet this
threshold. In essence, a belated amendment on disputed subsequent events, sans due diligence,
cannot reopen the lis or defeat the bona fide need unless it eclipses or extinguishes the same. An
amendment introducing such belated and contested pleas, particularly when the matter is ripe for
final arguments, and which would enlarge the scope of the lis or necessitate reopening of issues, is
liable to be rejected. The refusal of the appellate court, therefore, reflects a sound and judicious
exercise of discretion, calling for no interference.

58. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proposed amendment fails to
satisfy the mandatory requirement of due diligence and does not meet the test of necessity for
effective adjudication. The appellate court has exercised its discretion in consonance with settled
legal principles, and no error, much less any jurisdictional infirmity, is made out warranting
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

59. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

60. The order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasganj in Rent Appeal
No. 16 of 2023 is hereby affirmed.

61. The appellate court is directed to proceed with and decide the appeal expeditiously, in
accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, and without
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being influenced by any observations made herein, which shall be construed as confined to the
adjudication of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and shall not
affect the merits of the appeal.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 740
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 1505 of 2026

Smt. Munni Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shashikala Pandey ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
The scope and applicability of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly the proviso
thereto, in the context of amendment of grounds in revisional proceedings, and the circumstances in which
the requirement of "due diligence" may be invoked

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order VI Rule 17
& Section 151-The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which engrafts a limitation based on "due
diligence" after commencement of trial, is essentially confined to amendment of pleadings in
suits and is rooted in the need to prevent disruption of trial once evidence has commenced. The
said rigour cannot be extended, in a mechanical or literal manner, to appellate or revisional
proceedings, where no trial in the strict sense takes place and the Court is primarily concerned
with examining the legality and correctness of the impugned order on the basis of the existing
record. Consequently, an application seeking amendment of grounds in a revision cannot be
rejected solely on the ground of absence of due diligence. At the same time, such applications
are not to be allowed as a matter of course; the Court must scrutinise whether the proposed
grounds are bona fide, whether they raise pure questions of law arising from the record, or
whether they seek to introduce new factual pleas, displace admissions, or cause prejudice to the
opposite party. It is these broader considerations, and not the rigid application of the proviso,
which must guide the exercise of discretion in such matters.

Held- The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be mechanically applied to amendment of grounds in
revisional proceedings, the amendment sought by the petitioner is in substance an attempt to introduce new
factual pleas, withdraw admissions and reopen concluded issues, which is impermissible in law. The impugned
order, therefore, does not warrant interference. Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords