SATINDER NATH SHARMA AND ANR. Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th January, 2005 passed by learned trial court allowing amendment application seeking amendment of the written statement filed by the respondent. (The petitioner hereinafter shall be referred as "landlord" and the respondent as "tenant").

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC) against tenant Hari Chand on the ground of subletting the premises in question to a third person without obtaining his consent in writing. The eviction petition was filed in 1978. Issue regarding validity of the order under Section 19 of Slum Areas (I&C) Act, 1956 remained pending first before the High Court and thereafter, on remand back, before the competent authority (Slum). Thus, the petition remained dormant up to 2003 when the permission was again granted by the competent authority. After the petition proceeded further, the tenant made an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend the written statement so as to incorporate in the written statement paragraph 12 regarding developments that had taken place subsequent to filing of eviction petition.

(3.) The order passed by the trial court would show that the tenant wanted to incorporate the fact that the landlord had tried to obtain possession from tenant by all means and the tenant had to file a suit for permanent injunction in order to avoid taking of forcible possession. A case under Section 448 Indian Penal Code was also registered. The tenant by way of amendment wanted to incorporate the proceedings of the suit. The tenant also sought to insert averment that the landlord with malafide intention of seeking possession of the premises filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Mr. Naseeb Dass and Mr. Hari Chand alleging him to be the tenant in the premises. The tenant also sought to amend the written statement to include the fact that the landlord intended to raise illegal construction. It was submitted that all these facts were subsequent events which were necessary to adjudicate the real controversy.