KASHI NATH MEHROTRA Vs. ROOP NARAYAN CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. This application for amendment of the written statement has been filed in the present revision directed against a decree of the Judge Small Causes Court in a suit for rent and ejectment filed by the respondent Raj Narain Chaudhury against the applicant and proforma defendants respondents Shashi Kala and others. In para 1 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant applicant Kashi Naresh Mehrotra is a tenant of the premises on behalf of the plaintiff. In para 3 of the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff got the property in dispute in a family settlement dated 3-8-1988. In the written statement the family settlement has been denied. What has been admitted is that the defendant applicant was a tenant of the plaintiff's father but it has been denied that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was alleged that an agreement of sale of the disputed shop was executed by Raj Narain Chaudhury plaintiff's father in favour of one D. R. Basudeva on 17-10-1984 and that D. R. Basudeva transferred his rights under the agreement of sale in favour of the defendant applicant Kashi Naresh Mehrotra by a deed dated 31- 5-1988. The suit was decreed and the finding is that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Although the amendment application seeks to incorporate several pleas but the plea for the addition of which the arguments centred is one relating to Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act that the plaintiff's father as karta of the Hindu Undivided Family had executed a contract of sale transferring all ownership rights, possession and landlordship rights in favour of one D. R. Basudeva and that D. R. Vasudeva executed a registered agreement dated 31-5-1988 by which he on receiving payment of Rs. 1 lac from the defendant allowed the defendant to continue in possession in part performance of the contract. The original pleading did not contain any averment that possession was transferred in part performance to D. R. Vasudeva or by D. R. Vasudeva to the applicant.

(2.) I have heard Sri Ajit Kumar Counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Sinha Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE copy of the agreement of sale is Annexure 5 to the stay application. It bears a recital that the shop in dispute was in the tenancy of the applicant Kashi Naresh Mehrotra. THEre is no term in the agreement of sale transferring the possession of the shop in dispute to D. R. Basudeva. THE copy of the deed by which D. R. Basudeva transferred his rights to the applicant is Annexure 3 to the stay application. This deed also does not contain any term transferring possession to the applicant. Apparently, therefore, the plea of Section 53-A does not arise. THE original written statement also does not contain any plea that possession was transferred either to D. R. Basudeva or by D. R. Basudeva to the applicant.