HARI KISHAN Vs. PREM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed aginst the judgment and order dated 20th July, 1984 of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to amend the written statement.

(2.) Briefly these are the facts. The plaintiff-respondent on 12th October, 1981 filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against the petitioner. The plaintiff in the plaint has alleged that he is the owner of property No. 3089, Mohalla Dassan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, that Har Devi, widow of Shri Ram Lal had been a tenant in respect of the portion shown red in the plan on a monthly rent of Rs. 5.56 for residential purposes, that she died in 1978, that the tenancy of Smt. Har Devi was terminated during her life time, that she left behind only one son i.e. the defendant as her legal heir and that he has no right to inherit the tenancy.

(3.) The petitioner-defendant in his written statement had admitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the house, that Smt. Har Devi widow of Ram Lal was a tenant in respect of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 5.56 for residential purposes, that she died in 1978. The trial court framed various issues on 7th April, 1982 to the effect, whether the tenancy of Har Devi was terminated during her life time ; whether the defendant has paid all arears of rent and has been paying regularly to the plaintiff. No evidence has been led by any of the parties. On 14th March, 1983 the petitioner-defendant made an application for leave to amend the written statement. He alleged that originally the premises in suit were taken on rent 50 years ago by Shri Ram Lal, his father from L. Jyoti Pershad, father of the plaintiff. He died in 1958 leaving behind his widow Smt. Har Devi and his son, the defendant. He alleged that he came into possession of all the original rent receipts earliest being that of the year 1943 and the latest of the year 1957 all in the name of his father issued by late Jyoti Pershad, father of the plaintiff. He therefore proposed to amend the plaint by raising the following preliminary objection :