RAM PAL SINGH Vs. ZAFAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 6-2-90 passed by Sri A. L. Verma, Additional District Judge, Roorkee, recjecting the applicant's application for amendment of the written statement in S.C.C. suit no. 54 of 1988 for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Through the amendment application the defendant-applicant sought to take the plea that the. accommodation in question belonged to the father of the plaintiff and after his death it had devolved on his legal heirs and that the plaintiff alone was not landlord nor entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant.

(2.) IN the impugned order the learned court below has specifically stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff as there has been default in payment of rent with specific allegation that the plaintiff was landlord and defendant was his tenant. IN his written statement the defendant-applicant has admitted that grand-father of the plaintiff was the owner from whom he had taken it on rent and after his death the father of the plaintiff became the owner who continued to realise rent and he further specifically admitted that in the month of December, 1985 plaintiff's father told him that plaintiff was the owner and he further specifically admitted that be was always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Thus the defendant did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself. IN that view of the specific admission in the written statement, the defendant through amendment application sought to resile from the earlier admission and deny the plaintiff's title as landlord and, therefore, he rejected the amendment application.

(3.) FROM the above it is clear that their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the High Court of Judicature at Patna had wrongly interferred in allowing the revision with the order of the trial court even though there was no error of exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court. That apart their Lordships were also of the view that the learned trial Judge granting application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amendment of the pleading was necessary.