KEDAR NATH Vs. RAM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rules and the principles of case law have never been treated as final truths, but as working hypotheses, continually retested in great laboratories of the law, the Courts of justice. Every new case is an experiment ; and if the expected rule which seems applicable yields a result which is felt to be unjust the rule is reconsidered' -aid Cordozo (The Nature of The Judicial Process, p.23). It is this philosophical approach to rule of law which has persuaded two learned Single Judges of this Court seeking resolution of conflict in judicial opinion on a point of frequent recurrence before the Courts of law. This is how three matters are before the full Bench.

(2.) SAO 276/79 is an appeal preferred by a landlord who has lost his eviction petition from the Court of the Rent Controller and also from Rent Control Tribunal in appeal. One of the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord was that the defendant has constructed a house at Golf Links New Delhi. In the petition the house was described as '61, Glof Links. 'Later on the landlord learnt that the number of the house constructed by the tenant was '62, Glof Links, and not '61, golf Links.' He sought for an amendment of the eviction petition by substituting '62' in place of '61' which was allowed. Consequent to the petition having been amended, the tenant filed a new written statement to the amended petition. In the new written statement the tenant took a somersault over his earlier written statement and pleaded such facts as were at substantial-if not total-variance with the written statement as originally filed.

(3.) In Suit No. 2092/89 also a similar question arose before Usha Mehra, J. who vide order dated 5.8.94 directed the matter to be placed before a Larger Bench.