VIMLA DEVI Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of the application of defendant No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the written statement.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against defendant No. 1 for possession of premises in property No. 97-D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi alleged to be in his unauthorised occupation and for recovery of mesne profits. Defendant No. 1 is contesting the suit and has filed the written statement. He has inter alia alleged that he was inducted as a tenant on 1.11.1977 by late Shri Mangat Rai Gupta to whom rent was paid in cash but did not issue any receipts and after his death on 5.2.1977 his son Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, defendant No. 2 has been realising the rent and has been issuing rent receipts; he was not in unauthorised occupation and was a lawful tenant. And in preliminary objection No. 1, he has taken the objection that the suit is barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This written statement was filed on 1.10.1990. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed on 22.10.1991 and thereafter the suit has been fixed on 3 occasions for trial. So far no evidence has been led and the present application was filed on 19th July, 1996.

(3.) By this application the defendant wants to make amendment in the preliminary objection No. 1 to add that he was a tenant under late Shri Mangat Ram Gupta who did not issue any receipt to him or to other tenants in the premises in respect of the rent paid by them in cash and that several litigations in Civil Courts are pending against all those tenants, that after the death of Shri Mangat Rani Gupta on 5.12.1977, his son Shri Radhey Shayam Gupta, a co-owner of the property used to issue rent receipt to him.