BHARTI LAIQ Vs. GARDENIA ESTATES (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the order dated 24.9.2011 vide which the application filed by the tenant seeking amendment of his application for leave to defend under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. on the ground that there is bonafide requirement of the one of the directors of the landlord company namely Pavan Kohli of the disputed premises for his residence. The disputed premises are the first floor of premises bearing no. 138-A, Golf Links, New Delhi which has been tenanted out to the tenant/petitioner namely Bharti Laiq. Application for leave to defend had been filed on 22.7.2010; present application seeking amendment of the said application for leave to defend had been filed about more than six months later i.e. on 05.02.2011. In the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code the submission made by the tenant is that the director of the landlord company namely Pavan Kohli is a director in other holding companies of the petitioner as well and details of the said companies have been given in the said application; contention being that the present petition has been filed only to harass the petitioner as Pavan Kohli is the grandson of Narinder Singh Kohli who has other properties which are available with the petitioner company; further contention being that the company has residential accommodation at various places in Delhi and the director Pavan Kohli be directed to give a full disclosure of all these facts on affidavit; further the company M/s Pink City Apartments (P) Ltd. is the owner of the property No.227, Jor Bagh where Pavan Kohli is presently residing and he has a right to remain in this property in his own right; the company Speed Lines (P) Ltd. also has several commercial flats; there is no bonafide need of the present accommodation.

(3.) THE impugned order had dismissed the application primarily on the ground that an application seeking amendment is not permissible in an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRCA as the procedure enlisted for dealing with such an application is contained in Section 25(B) of the said Act and in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 15 Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh, such an application could not be entertained.