NIRMALA DEVI Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenges the judgment and order of the Senior Sub Judge dated 30th November, 1978 reversing the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 28th October, 1978, granting her leave to amend the plaint after reviewing his earlier order dated 31st August, 1978.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that Jodha Ram had three sons, namely, Partap Chand, Gopal Krishan (defendant No. 1) and Satpal (defendant No. 2). Smt.NirmalaDevi, plaintiff-petitioner is the widow of Partap Ghand. House No. 36-A and B, Block No. 80 in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was allotted to her in 1951 by the Housing and Rent Officer, Delhi on payment of Rs. 20.00 per month as rent. She had been paying rent and eventually on payment of Rs. 9,782-31 towards the cost, interest, rent, ground rent arrears etc. the President of India executed a registered lease deed dated 28th May, 1968 in respect of the plot of land and also executed a registered Deed of Conveyance in her favour for the structure standing on the said plot. The plaintiff thus claims herself to be the lessee of the plot and owner of the building standing thereon. Gopal Krishan and Satpal (defendants I and 2) are alleged to be in occupation of the property as licensees under the plaintiff. Defendants I and 2 filed a suit in December, 1969 against the plaintiff for an injunction not to disturb their possession except in due course of law which suit was dismissed on 10th April, 1978 by the trial court but an appeal i pending.

(3.) The plaintiff in May, 1970 filed the suit for mandatory injunction against defendants I and 2 to vacate portion of the said property in their occupation .and not to interfere with her possession. Defendants I and 2 in their written statement dated 11th August, 1970 besides other defences pleaded that the suit in the present form was not maintainable, that her suit was really a suit for possession) that she was liable to pay ad valorem court fee on the value of the property. This suit was stayed on 27th February, 1971 in view of the earlier suit for injunction filed by defendants 1 and 2.