PARDUMAN SINGH Vs. Y D SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 5th December, 1990 passed by Shri R.S. Mahla Sub Judge, Delhi dismissing the two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 For amendment. The first application was moved for amendment in the written statement while the second application was moved for amendment in the amendment application.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit alleging himself to be the owner of a plot of land bearing No. HS-17, Kailash Colony Market, Kailash Colony, New Delhi and that the petitioner-defendant of his own showing was a tenant of the suit land. The respondent-plaintiff had terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 26th July, 1980 and thereafter the suit for possession had been filed. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant, the stand taken was that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the case is governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1957. The suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. After the plaintiff was partly cross- examined, it appears that the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in which he wanted to add Preliminary Objection No. 4 and also wanted an amendment in para- graph 6 on merits and the substance of the amendment which he shought to incorporate was that the plaintiff allowed the defendant, at the time of letting out of the premises in question, to raise construction on the unconstructed portion of the plot of land in question. Such construction was to be in addition to the construction which the plaintiff had let out to the defendant at the time of creation of the tenancy. It is submitted that such construction, along with the remaining unconstructed portion of the plot of land was to be used for manufacturing purposes. This amendment sought by the petitioner-defendant has been disallowed on the ground that the applications are malafide and intended to delay the proceedings and in fact is an abuse of process of law and consequently the pleas which are now sought to be incorporated in the written statement are inconsistent pleas wholly suicidal to the original pleas taken by the petitioner-defendant in the written statement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has vehemently contested the revision petition and raised substantially the same pleas which were raised before the Sub Judge.