ESTRALLA RUBBER Vs. DASS ESTATE (PVT ) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THIS appeal by the defendant in the suit, aggrieved by and directed against the order dated 15th September, 2000 made in CO 665 of 2000. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in respect of suit property for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement for building or rebuilding and on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defendant filed an application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') raising certain contentions including that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Thereafter the defendant filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said amendment application was contested by the plaintiff. The Trial Court rejected the application, taking a view that the proposed amendment would be inconsistent and it will have the effect of displacing the plaintiff from admission made by the defendant. The defendant filed a revision petition against the said order under Section 115A of the CPC before the District Judge who allowed the revision petition, reversed the order of the trial court and allowed the amendment application filed by the defendant. It is, thereafter, the plaintiff filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the High Court was not right and justified in exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as an appellate or a revisional court without bearing in mind that the power under Article 227 is one of the superintendence; it was not correct to say that the defendant wanted to withdraw the so -called admission said to have been made in favour of the plaintiff, when no such admission was there as a matter of fact. He added that the proposed amendment was only to support the defence already taken by elaboration based on the revenue records. It was not shown as to how any prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the amendment; a mere delay in filing application for amendment is itself not a ground to reject the same; the proposed amendment was necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to avoid further litigation.