NATHU SWEETS Vs. SARVESH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 08.06.2011, passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge cum Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "the Code") was rejected.

(2.) The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are as under. The petitioner was a tenant since the year 1939, under the respondent landlord, with respect to properties bearing nos. 23, 24, and 25 and residential Qr. No 62 and 63 situated in plot no. 3, block no. 205-C, Bengali Mal Market, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). The respondent was a perpetual sub-lessee under the Land and Development Office (for short "the L&DO"). An eviction petition was filed by the respondent u/S 14 (1) (a) (j) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act") on the ground that the petitioner has defaulted in the payment of rent and that they have also raised illegal constructions on the suit property. The petitioner decided to contest the eviction petition and filed a written statement. After filing of the written statement, the petitioner filed an application u/O 6 Rule 17 of the Code in order to incorporate certain subsequent events that came to the knowledge of the petitioner. It was learnt by the petitioner that the suit property has been reentered by the L&DO on 27.11.1974 vide letter No. L.1/9205/SP.3/75 dated 25.05.1975, as the perpetual lease deed granted by the L&DO to the respondents had been cancelled. The petitioner also came to know of the fact that the suit property was currently vested with the NDMC vide a notice dated 31.05.2007, that was sent by the department to the petitioner and others at Bengali Market, informing that vide notification dated 24.03.2006, certain properties (including the suit property) have been vested in the NDMC. The petitioner applied to the NDMC under the Right to Information Act and the NDMC, vide reply No. D/SO(STC)/629/2007, dated 17.09.2007, informed that possession of Bengali market was taken in April, 2007 on an "as is where is basis?. As a consequence of this, the respondent allegedly no longer owned the suit property and the petitioner was now under the tenancy of NDMC. The petitioner in furtherance of the same deposited rent with the NDMC for the period 1.11.2004 to 31.08.2008 on 06.08.2007 by cheque.

(3.) Under the said application, changes were sought to be made in paragraph 3[a] of the written statement as the same has been wrongly typed as "The petitioner is not only the owner/landlord" instead of "the petitioner is not the only owner/landlord". In addition, amendments were also to be made in paragraphs no. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the written statement to the effect that the ownership of the suit property now vested with the NDMC and that the respondent had no longer any right or interest in the same.