RAJENDRA KUMAR RASTOGI Vs. YOGESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court dated 21st April, 2005, whereby application paper No. 23C filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking amendment has been rejected, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit being S.C.C. Suit No. 91 of 1999 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that petitioner is tenant of part of house No. 2A, Sarai Khuldabad, Allahabad on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 but since the tenant-petitioner is in arrears of rent since 1st January 1993, his tenancy was terminated by the notice dated 15th March, 1999, which was served upon the tenant on 19th March, 1999. It is further submitted that when the petitioner failed to pay the rent despite service of the aforesaid notice, the suit for eviction was filed. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 29th November, 2004 decreed the suit filed by the respondent-landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner tenant preferred revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which has been registered as Rent Revision No. 74 of 2005. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision before the revisional court, the petitioner-tenant filed an application for amendment in the written statement paper No. 23C with the prayer that paragraphs 32 to 39 may be added in the written statement, as by those paragraphs, the tenant-petitioner wanted to add the details of the deposits made by the tenant in order to get benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The respondent-landlord filed objection to the application 23C filed by the petitioner-tenant. The revisional court by the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 21st April, 2005 dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner-tenant with the observation that the petitioner is delaying the disposal of the suit.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tenant contended that the view taken by the revisional court in dismissing the application 23C suffers from the manifest error of law, inasmuch as the revisional court has taken into consideration that what has been sought to be added by means of application 23C is only the details of the deposits made by the petitioner-tenant and if on account of mistake of the counsel if certain important fact could not be incorporated in the written statement which is now being brought by means of amendment application incorporating such details should have been allowed. In this circumstance, the view taken by the revisional court that the petitioner is admittedly delaying the disposal of the suit is not correct. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, 1978 AH CJ 130, wherein the Apex Court has quoted with approval the view taken by the Apex Court in the case in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR1969 SC 1267 , (1969 )1 SCC869 , [1970 ]1 SCR22 , which is reproduced below : "Rules of procedure are intended to a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a part, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensed for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side."