BHAGATRAM ARORA Vs. BHAGWAT SWAROOP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P-1 dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Court below dismissing an application for amendment filed by the petitioner, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed.

(2.) PETITIONER is tenant in the suit premises and is facing eviction suit filed by the plaintiff landlord on the ground contemplated under section 12 (1) (f) i.e., bona fide need of the landlord. It is the case of the plaintiff that petitioner is tenant in the suit premises for a rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Initially petitioner filed a written statement admitting that rent of the suit premises was Rs. 1,000/- but thereafter made averments that it was Rs. 800/- and in the year 1993 arbitrarily without proper consent and in compulsion rent has been increased from Rs. 200 to Rs. 800/-. Petitioner after the written statement was filed, wants to amend and make contention that the rent of the suit premises has been arbitrarily increased which is contrary to the provision of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and wants to challenge the arbitrary increase of rent on the ground that it is not permissible, this application for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. Shri V.K. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh others [2006 (III) MPWN 97 = 2006 (4) MPLJ 1] argued that amendment in the written statement can be allowed at any stage of proceeding and in the proceeding as it is relevant for deciding the dispute between the parties, learned Court has committed grave error in rejecting the application for amendment.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record it is clear that the evidence of the plaintiff is over and now the suit is fixed for remaining evidence of the defendant and their cross- examination, learned Court has held that the application for amendment cannot be allowed at this stage and it is indicated by the Court that as no standard rent is fixed the question of violation of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the provision of section 7 and 8 of the M.R Accommodation Control Act are not to be decided in this proceedings. Even otherwise as indicated by Shri Sumant Mishra that suit is for eviction of the petitioner on the bona fide need of the plaintiff and the petitioner having admitted rent of the suit premises to be Rs. 1,000/- and having already taken a plea that the rent has been arbitrarily increased by compulsion, I find no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage. The order passed cannot be termed as erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference at this stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for.