Bona fide requirement procedure upheld where special rent control classification and tenant safeguards were found constitutionally valid.

A landlord's amendment restoring a bona fide requirement ground was discussed as not being barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, because that rule applies to omission of part of the same cause of action and does not prevent revival of a separate ground in the same proceedings. Constructive res judicata was also treated as inapplicable, since there had been no prior adjudication between the parties on that point. On constitutionality, Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was analysed as a special summary procedure confined to bona fide requirement cases, supported by a reasonable classification and tenant safeguards, and therefore not violative of Article 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the landlord's subsequent amendment to restore the ground of bona fide requirement was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the amendment was hit by constructive res judicata; and (iii) whether Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the landlord's subsequent amendment to restore the ground of bona fide requirement was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order 2 Rule 2 applies where a plaintiff omits or relinquishes part of the same cause of action and later seeks to sue on that omitted part. It does not bar a party from proceeding on a distinct and separate cause of action, nor does it prevent the plaintiff from abandoning one asserted ground and later reviving another separate ground in the same proceedings by amendment. The tenant had not entered the picture when the first relinquishment took place.

Conclusion: The amendment was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment was hit by constructive res judicata.

Analysis: Constructive res judicata requires a prior formal adjudication between the same parties after a full hearing. At the stage when the landlord had withdrawn the earlier ground, there was no adjudication inter partes and the tenant was not yet before the Rent Controller. The later amendment was made in the same proceedings, and no prior decision on the point existed.

Conclusion: The doctrine of constructive res judicata did not apply.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The special procedure under Section 25B was confined to eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and the related special category under Section 14A. That classification was supported by the object of securing expeditious relief in cases of genuine personal necessity, while still preserving tenant safeguards through service requirements, leave to defend, revisional control and review. The statutory differentiation was treated as a reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the object of the legislation, and the presumption of constitutionality was not displaced.

Conclusion: Section 25B was held constitutionally valid and not discriminatory under Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction order failed on all substantial grounds, and the tenant's eviction was upheld with limited time granted for handing over possession.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision creating a special summary procedure for a narrowly defined class of bona fide landlord-occupation cases is valid where the classification is reasonable, has a rational nexus with the legislative object, and adequate tenant safeguards are built into the procedure.

---