NARINDER KUMAR Vs. PARVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of SubJudge, first class rejecting application for amendment of the written statement, under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge found that the proposed amendment contradicted the earlier stand taken by the defendants He further held that the proposed amendment was not bona fide, the motive being to delay the matter.

(2.) The_law in regard to amandment of a written statement is now wall setteled The main consideration for the Court under Order 6 Rule 17 is to examine whether the proposed amendment is just or not and whether it is necessary tor the proper and effective decision of the case. Delay in filing such an application by itself is of no consequence. The discretion in allowing an amendment has to be weighed in the context of all circumstances, such as pleadings of the parties, the likely effect of the proposed amendment and the prejudice that the plaintiff may suffer.

(3.) The suit premises namely, the shop, was originally let out to one Bhawani Dass and one Fateh Chand. Bhawani Dass died in 1963. The present respondent purchased the suit house in 1969. The tenancy of Fateh Chand was terminated in September, 1970 by a notice. In reply to the said notice late Fateh Chand asserted that the tenancy of the shop (for commercial purpose) was granted in the name of the firm Fateh Chand Bhawani Dass run by Hindu Undivided Family, (H.U.F.) since the time of Bhawani Dass. Even at the time of notice business was being carried out by the firm on behalf of the H.U.F. in the said premises. Fateh Chand denied that there was any subletting in favour of his sons as alleged in the notice. The landlord made an application thereafter for seeking permission of the Slum Clearance Authorities Those proceedings went on upto 1974. In December, 1974, Fateh Chand died. The present suit was filed on 26-5-75 alleging that the defendants (who are the sons and widow of Fateh Chand) are Occupying the suit premises without the consent, authority and permission of the plaintiff and they had no right, title or interest, whatsoever, in the suit premises. It was further alleged that the defendants had not inherited any right from Shri Fateh Chand and that their possession of the premises was in the nature of trespass. In reply to the said averments in the plaint, the defendants reiterated their stand mentioned in reply to notice of termination of tenancy. It was explained in detail that Fateh Chand and Bhavvani Dass, formed Joint Hindu Family and H.F.F. was running the firm Fateh Chand Bnawani Dass.-After the death of Bhawani Dass as well as Fateh Chand, the H.U.F. the business in the suit continued to run premises. It was denied that Fateh Chand alone became the tenant in respect of the shop after the death of Bhawani Dass. lt was then .asserted that the tenancy rights in the suit shop were secured by the present defendants according to Hindu Law.