KANCHANBHAI MANGALDAS Vs. MADAN GOPAL RAJARAM SHUKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Rule. Mr. S. M. Shah appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. This group of civil revision applications is directed against common judgment and oder passed by Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad below application Exh. 300 tendered under Order 6 Rule 17 of C. P. Code. By the impugned order dated 6-4-1994 the trial court has allowed the application and has permitted the plaintiff in HRP suit to amend the plaint within a week from the date of the order and to supply copy of the amended plaint to the defendants. It is such common order granting amendment of the plaint which is subject-matter of challenge in this group of Civil Revision Applications.

(2.) . It appears that the respondent plaintiffMadangopal Rajaram Shukla has instituted HRP Suit No. 3387/81 against the petitioner-tenant and other suits being HRP Suit Nos. 3388 to 3407 of 1981 and HRP Suit No. 3420/81 and HRP Suit No.280/81 against various other tenants to recover possession of respective suit premises from each tenant inter alia on the ground that each tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months and has failed to pay arrears of rent despite service of demand notice under Section 12 of Bombay Rent Act and that therefore each tenant was liable to be evicted. It appears that all such suits were consolidated as respondent landlord was common and the common ground of non-payment of arrears of rent was alleged against each tenant for his eviction. It appears that the trial Court framed common issues at Exh. 13 and permitted the parties to read oral as well as documentary evidence. After the evidence was recorded the trial Court after hearing oral submissions of the learned Advocates for parties proceeded to deliver the judgment and on 29th December 1993 the trial court for the first time fixed standard rent of the premises in possession of each defendant at Rs. 20.00 p. m. exclusive of taxes and with respect to premises in possession of Ramiqubal Pitambar Thakur the defendant of HRP Suit No. 3399/81 he fixed standard rent at Rs. 60 p.m. Thereafter in para 17 of the judgment the trial Court held that as standard rent of suit premises in each case was determined for the first time by the court the defendant-tenant in each case was required to be granted reasonable time to pay deficit of arrears of rent and mesne profits in the court. Accordingly he held that each defendant was required to be granted reasonable time to pay up arrears of rent and thereafter he held that further question as to whether each defendant tenant was entitled to protection under Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rent Act was required to be decided. Accordingly he directed each defendant-tenant to deposit arrears of rent commencing from 1-10-1977 on or before 21st January 1994 and he observed that the defendants were required to deposit said rent to avail protection under Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rent Act. So stating he reserved his finding on the issue as to whether the defendant in each case was entitled to protection of Section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. It further appears that thereafter the defendant in each case deposited arrears of rent as directed by the trial Court on or before 21st January 1994 and pursis to that effect was filed on 21st January 1994 in the trial Court by the defendant-tenant in each case. That pursis is to be found at Exh. 294.

(3.) . It is at this stage that the respondent-plaintiff moved the trial court by way of application at Exh. 300 for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. Code inter alia contending that though in reply to the notice of demand each tenant has accepted the plaintiff as landlord of the suit premises in the written statement filed in each suit a contention is raised that the plaintiff-landlord was not entitled to recover rent and that he has no right title or interest over the suit premises. It is further averred that because of such averment contained in the written statement the defendant-tenant in each suit denied the title of the plaintiff landlord over the suit property and has thereby incurred liability of eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title of landlord and that said ground is required to be incorporated in the plaint for eviction. He further averred that the trial court has simply passed interim judgment and order and therefore the matter cannot be said to have been finally decided and since pure question of law has arisen on admitted facts the plaintiff-landlord should be permitted to agitate such question in the very suit by duly amending the plaint and by framing necessary issue on such pleading. The second amendment which the plaintiff-landlord sought in the said plaint was to the effect that each defendant-tenant has acquired suitable residential accommodation after coming into force of the Bombay Rent Act and that therefore each defendant-tenant has incurred the liability of eviction under Section 13(1)(L) of Bombay Rent Act. By the proposed amendment therefore the plaintiff-landlord wanted to introduce paras 3A and 3B in the plaint in each suit.