RAMA NATARAJA DIKSHIDAR Vs. V NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.5738 of 2008 on the file of the 17th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court is the revision petitioner. THE respondent / Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession stating that the revision petitioner is a licensee and the license period was over, but, he failed to quit the premises. In the suit, the revision petitioner filed a statement that he is a tenant of the premises as per the lease agreement, dated 15.12.2005 and has also taken the plea that the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff is not maintainable and the respondent has to workout his remedy under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. After PW1 filed a proof of affidavit, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.19686 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the written statement to the effect that in para 13, to add that "the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only the Rent Control Court has got jurisdiction to try this matter" and in para 14, instead of the sentence, namely 'there is no bonafide on the part of the defendant', it must be modified as "there is no bonafide on the part of the plaintiff". This application for amendment was dismissed and as against the same, this revision is filed.

(2.) IT is submitted by Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that earlier, the revision petitioner filed O.S.No.3206 of 2008 for bare injunction. Thereafter, in the suit in O.S.No.5738 of 2008, though the defendant raised the plea that the suit is not maintainable and no issue was framed, he filed the application to amend the written statement to add that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and there is also typographical error in para 14, instead of stating "there is no bonafide on the part of the plaintiff", it was wrongly typed and therefore, those two amendments were sought to be made, but, without appreciating the same, the Court below dismissed the application. The learned counsel further submitted that even without raising the plea, he is entitled to argue that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and only the Rent Control Court has got jurisdiction and only by way of abundant caution that plea was sought to be added in the written statement and therefore, the amendments of the written statement ought to have been allowed.

(3.) CRP No.4232 of 2010 is filed by the Revision petitioner as against the order of the Court below refusing to allow the application for amendment. The application for amendment was filed by the Revision Petitioner / defendant to add one sentence in para 13 that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and only the Rent Controller Court has got jurisdiction to try the matter. Another amendment sought to be made was instead of the sentence that "there is no bonafide on the part of the defendant", it must be modified as "there is no bonafide on the part of the plaintiff". Insofar as the second part of the amendment is concerned, it is a clear case of typographical error and therefore, there cannot be any objection for allowing the amendment. Insofar as the first part is concerned, it is the consistent plea of the revision petitioner that he is a tenant of the premises. In the suit in O.S.No.3206 of 2008, he has claimed his right under the lease agreement. In the present suit also in para 2 of the written statement, he has stated that he entered into the lease agreement with the plaintiff on 15.12.2005. In para 10, it has been stated that the defendant / Revision Petitioner has not violated the terms of the agreement, dated 15.12.2005. A reading of the entire statement would make it clear that the defendant is contesting the suit on the ground that he is a tenant under the respondent. Further, in para 13, he has also stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and he has to work out his remedy only under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the proposed amendment that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and only the Rent Control Court has got jurisdiction is only supplementing the stand of the defendant and he is not introducing any new case for the first time. Therefore, by allowing the amendment no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff / respondent.