JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA KALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The order sought to be challenged by way of this petition is regarding refusal of the Additional Rent Controller to allow proposed amendments made in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was passed on 24th August, 1992.

(2.) The case of the petitioner/tenant is that he filed an application before the Addl. Rent Controller by raising the additional grounds, which reads as follow:-

(3.) The case of the respondent/landlady on the other hand is that if the amendments sought are permitted then this would amount to setting up a new case contrary to the withdrawal of the admissions already made. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attendon to the reply filed to the application for leave to contest the eviction petition. In paragraph 3 of the said application it has specifically been averred that the husband of the landlady-respondent No. 1 retired on 30.9.1986 and the eviction petition was filed on 28.5.1990. The petitioner agreed to let out the tenancy premises to the respondent/tenant fora fixed period of eleven months w.e.f. 1.2.1986 and it was made clear that her husband was to retire on 30.9.1986 and thereafter the premises were required for her bonafide residence, to which the respondent agreed at the time of letting out the premises. It is further the case of the respondent/landlady is that after the retirement other husband he was to vacate the Government allotted flat at Netajee Nagar, so the respondent was repeatedly approached to vacate the tenancy premises and he went on giving false promises on one pretext or the other. Since the Estate Department forced the husband of the landlady to vacate the Government flat or to pay market rate of rent, which was beyond the capacity of the husband of the landlady, as he is getting very petty amount of pension, so the said Government flat was vacated and shifted his goods to the ground floor of the suit premises but the tenant and his wife started creating nuisance and it was injurious to the husband of the landlady who is a cronic heart patient. In view of the compelling circumstances after keeping most of the goods there the respondent with her family shifted and shared the Government allotted accommodation to the landlady's brother at Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi.