BASAVAN JAGGU DHOBI Vs. SUKHNANDAN RAMDAS CHAUDHARY DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard both the learned counsel at length. The respondent-landlord sought to evict the appellant under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes court Act, staling that the leave and licence granted in favour of the appellant came to be terminated by notice dated 14/5/1974. Thereafter he had no right to remain in possession and he was liable to be evicted. In defence, what the appellant urged that he was a joint tenant along with others. That plea of joint tenancy has been negatived by the courts below. In this appeal, it is urged before us that the courts below have gone wrong on two counts - (i) that by amending a written statement, an alternative plea opposed to the original stand of the defendant was not permissible; (ii) the courts below have overlooked the beneficial provision of Section 15-A available to the appellant under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. Should this court accept these submission, the appellant is entitled to succeed.

(2.) The stand of the appellant is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent urging that having regard to the ruling in D. H. Manier v. Woman Laxman Kudav even on the basis that the appellant is a licensee, he cannot get the protection of Section 15-A.

(3.) As regards the first contention, we are afraid that the courts below have gone wrong in holding that it is not open to the defendant to amend his written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code by taking a contrary stand than what was stated originally in the written statement. This is opposed to the settled law. It is open to a defendant to take even contrary stands or contradictory stands, thereby the cause of action is not in any manner affected. That will apply only to a case of the plaint being amended so as to introduce a new cause of action. Be that so.