JAGDISH PERSHAD Vs. HARDAYAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1980 of the Additional Controller, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to amend the eviction application. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner-landlord filed an application for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Section 14(l)(c)of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 21st January, 1977. On an application by the respondent he was granted leave to contest. He filed the written statement. The landlord examined his evidence and the respondent also examined most of his evidence. On 30th August, 1979 the petitioner made an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking leave to amend the eviction petition by adding a ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act alleging that the tenant has now acquired vacant possession of the residence at C-24, Ashok Vihar Phase I, Delhi and has shifted therein along with his family members. This application was resisted by the respondent. The Additional Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the same was not maintainable in proceedings under Section 25B of the Act.

(2.) The question for decision is : Whether after the grant of leave to defend, a landlord can be permitted to amend the eviction application with a view to add a ground of eviction in proceedings under Section 25 B of the Act? Chapter I I I A in the Act was introduced with effect from 1st December, 1975 by Act is of 1976 for summary trial of eviction applicatiou filed by a landlord undersection 14(l)(e)or Section 14A. Section 25B provides that such an application shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. Sub-section (4) of Section 25B provides that the tenant shall not contest the application for eviction unless he seeks leave to contest the same by filing an affidavit. It provides that in default of obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admilted by the tenant and the application shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. Under what circumstances leave to defend can be granted is provided in sub-section (5) of the said section. Sub-section (8) read with the proviso provides that no appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in the section. The proviso however enables the High Court to satisfy itself that the order made by the Controller was according to law. Sub-section (10) of Section 25B of the Act reads as under :

(3.) According to this sub-section an eviction application even under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act is to be tried by the Controller according to the procedure prescribed for trial of other eviction applications except to the extent that the Controller shall also follow the proceedure mentioned in Section 25B of the Act. In other words, it would mean that if leave to defend is not granted to the tenant there would be an order of eviction against him under subsection (4) of Section 25B.of the Act, an-lif leave to defend is granted to a tenant, the eviction application whethe- under Section 14A or under Section 14(l)(e)of the Act would be tried as any other eviction application. It is well known that the Controller has power to grant leave to the parties to amend their pleadings. After the grant of leave to defend the eviction application would be tried as any other eviction application and therefore the application for leave to amend would be maintainable and would require the adjudication by the Controller whether the amendment should be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of sub section (10) of Section 25B of the Act, I am of the view that once leave to defend is granted to a tenant the parties are entitled to seek leave to amend their readings. In other words, in the present case. the petitioner-landlord is entitled to seek leave to amend the eviction application. The Controller was, therefore. wrong in observing that in proceedings under Section 25B of the Act additional ground of eviction cannot be added by amendment. He was wrong in holding that the application for leave to amend was not maintainable. 1. therefore, hold that after the grant of leave to defend, a landlord is entiled to amend the application for eviction.