M K MONGHA Vs. TRIBHUVAN NATH PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application by the present petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has given birth to this order.

(2.) Before I proceed to deal with the arguments advanced, a brief resume of the facts is called for. Respondents No. 1 & 2 as plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against respondent No. 3 and so also against the present petitioner. It was alleged therein that as the plaintiffs happended to be the landlords and as they had let out the premises to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4500.00 and as the tenancy of respondent No. 3 had been validly terminated, therefore, they were entitled to a decree for possession. They arrayed the present petitioner also as a defendant in the suit on the ground that he was in unauthorised possession of a part of the suit premises. Written statements, in response to the suit, were filed and the present respondent No. 3 admitted therein to be a tenant under the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 & 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500.00 . It was also admitted that a notice of termination of tenancy had been served and that the tenancy had been validly terminated. The rate of rent was also admitted to be Rs. 4,500.00 per month. It was also not denied that a part of the suit premises had been sub-let to the present petitioner. As for as the present petitioner is concerned, he took the plea that it was respondent No. 3 who was the owner-landlord and that the premises under his tenancy had been taken on rent from respondent No. 3. He categorically stated that the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 & 2 had no locus standi, that they had no right to terminate the tenancy of respondent No. 3 and that in any case, no order or decree for possession could be passed. Consequent upon the pleadings issues were framed and while the trial was going on respondent No. 3 chose not to appear as a witness or to examine any witness. The rest of the evidence i.e. the evidence of the present petitioner and of the plaintiffs-respondents 1 & 2 is yet to be recorded. Before this evidence could be recorded, the present petitioner moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of his written statement which, as already noticed above, is the bone of contention.

(3.) By way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the present petitioner sought to take the plea that the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 & 2 were not the owners-landlords of the premises in his possession and that their Predecessor ininterest had executed a Will by virtue of which the premises in possession of the present petitioner had not fallen to their share and that consequently the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 & 2 had no right, title or interest in the premises in question and as such were not entitled to a decree for possession. The second plea sought to be taken was that as the premises had been let out to respondent No. 3 not on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500.00 but only on a rent of Rs. 2,500.00 per month, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The application, however, did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the same. Hence this civil revision.