NAND GOPAL AGARWAL Vs. LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is a party to the proceedings of a (PA) Suit No. 2 of 2017, "Lakshmi Devi Vs. Nandgopal", which was instituted by the applicant/respondent, herein, by invoking the provisions contained under sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. The application, thus, filed by the applicant/respondent was way back on 16/1/2017, and in response to the need expressed by the landlord in the release application, the opposite party i.e. the petitioner, herein, had already disclosed his defence by filing a written statement on 12/9/2017.

(2.) The proceedings under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, was carried before the Prescribed Authority, and the evidence of the applicant landlord has already been closed, and thereafter the matter has been fixed for the leading of the evidence by the opposite party i.e. the petitioner, herein, at a belated stage i.e. on 18/3/2019, the petitioner had preferred an amendment application, seeking to incorporate paragraph 29 (a) by bringing the new facts on record with regards to the implications of the purchase of the property by virtue of the sale deed dtd. 20/4/1997. In fact, the factum of sale, which was admittedly made in the year 1997, was a factual plea, which was already available to the petitioner, when he filed his written statement on 12/9/2017.

(3.) Hence, his application, if it is read in consonance to the provisions contained under Sec. 34(d) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, to be read with Rule 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972, which attracts the application of the proviso contained under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the said provision in the year 2002, had undergone an amendment, hence the application, itself, of the petitioner to bring on record, which is a pre existing fact, at the time of the filing of the written statement, by invoking the aforesaid provisions would be barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.