CMI LIMITED Vs. ARUN BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by the defendant-petitioner feeling aggrieved by an order of the Trial Court whereby its application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking an amendment in the written statement has been directed to be rejected.

(2.) It is a landlord-tenant suit. The tenancy is not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. On 11.3.89, the plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of .the defendant. In the month of August, 1989 the suit for ejectment was filed. The written statement was filed in October, 1990. In August, 1996, i.e. after a lapse of about six years from the date of filing of the original written statement, the application for amendment has been moved. The plaintiff is in the witness box and has been examined in chief.

(3.) By the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code the defendant- petitioner proposes to add several paragraphs in the written statement, the sum and substance whereof is that the plaintiff having accepted rent for the period subsequent to the date of the notice and before the filing of the suit, the notice for ejectment stands waived and therefore the plaintiff cannot seek any decree for ejectment.