VIJAY KUMAR SETHI Vs. MANEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2.9.1992, passed by the Additional Rent Controller and the order dated 11.2.1997 of the Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 2.9.1992.

(2.) The learned Additional Rent Controller vide his order dated 2.9.1992, had allowed an application under Section 151, CPC, moved by respondent No. 1- landlord and struck out from the record, the unauthorised amendments / additions made in the written statement by the petitioner and others. The petitioner and others, were permitted to file written statement confined to the amendment in the eviction petition. They were also permitted to aver, if they had been misled in their defence or prejudiced due to the omissions in the amended petition, filed by respondent.

(3.) The case of the petitioner/tenant is that once an amendment is permitted in the plaint/eviction petition, the defendant has an unfettered right to file the written statement beyond the amendment made, and the written statement need not be confined to the amendments made in the petition. The petitioner further submits that the question as to whether petitioner can take any plea in defence, while filing the amended written statement in response to the amended plaint or is confined to reply to only the amendments made in the plaint, has been referred to the Division Bench in Kedar Nath v. Ram Prakash, reported at 67 (1997) D.L.T. 106. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the present case should also be referred to the Division Bench for a decision, for which a reference has already been made as noted above. Reliance is placed on New Bank of India v. Smt. Raj Rani, AIR 1966 Punj 103, Ram Chand v. Mahinder Singh, 1989 (2) R.L.R. 603 and Rugsana Sultan v. Mahinder Kaur, 1983 R.L.R. 776, where conflicting views have been expressed by the Court. Notice was directed to be issued in the petition by this Court on 7.8.1997 to the respondents on whether the question involved should be referred to the Division Bench or not? returnable on 18.9.1997. The respondent/landlord has filed his counter. The contention of the respondent is that this is not a case of amendment of the eviction petition but involved only a correction of a typographical omission or mistake. The question whether the defendant, petitioner herein, gets an untrammeled right to amend the written statement does not arise in the present facts and circumstances and reference to the Division Bench is not warranted.