JAGANNATH PRASAD Vs. PRAG NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision from a a order refusing to grant leave to Jagannath Prasad to amend his plaint. The suit is for ejectment and arrears of rent against his tenant Prag Narain. Initially it was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had executed a rent-note in favour of the plaintiff on July 31, 1956, for a shop and the portion over it, for Rs. 250 per year and the rent-note was registered. It is unnecessary to mention the other allegations made in the plaint as they are not relevant for this revision. The defendant admitted the execution and registration of the rent-note, but alleged that he was under no obligations because the possession of the premises was never given to him.

(2.) THEREUPON the plaintiff made an application for leave to amend the plaint in which he stated these facts: The disputed premises formed part of a larger building which was originally rented out to Laxmichand. Subsequently some open land and a portion of the whole property was sold to Laxmichand on July 31, 1956. Laxmichand paid rent up to that day. But as regards the remaining portion he got a rent-note executed from the defendant and also got it registered. Laxmichand is an old man and the defendant is his nephew (sister's son) and resides with him. He (Laxmichand) had also said that the defendant would succeed him. The defendant looks after and maintains Laxmichand's business. Since in his written statement the defendant asserts that Laxmichand's possession continues, the plaintiff believes that there is a collusion between them.

(3.) IN Kodiva Gopal v. Mestrengaen(AIR 1928 Bom. 91) it is held that the defendant cannot object to the addition of a defendant when he is added in view of his own objection. Here it was the defendant who alleged that the possession had not been given to him and that Laxmichand was actually in possession. As such he cannot object being joined in the suit.