JAYGUN BIBI Vs. TARAKESWAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant/petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge. Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Civil Revision Case No. 86 of 1991 on 28.5.92 setting aside the order of the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah dated 31.5.91 allowing in part the defendant/petitioner's prayer for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No. 558 of 1979.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge under section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure is manifestly illegal and, as such, should be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India restoring the order passed by the learned Munsif against which the defendant/petitioner came up in revision before the learned Additional District Judge under section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the undisputed facts on record may be referred to as follows :-

(3.) The plaintiff / opposite party filed the aforesaid suit for eviction against the present petitioner under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act admitting him to be the sole tenant in respect of the disputed premises on the ground that she had defaulted in payment of rent. Written statement was duly filed by the defendant/petitioner and issues were framed. There was no defence in the written statement that the suit was bad for defect of parties that the defendant's husband was the sole tenant and after his death his heirs including the present petitioner became the tenants in respect of the suit premises. After the cross-examination of the plaintiff/opposite party, the defendant/petitioner filed an application for amendment of the written statement on 20.2.91. In the said application for amendment of the written statement it was stated that after the death of husband of the defendant the tenancy devolved upon the defendant along with other heirs. So, a new plea was sought to be taken that the suit was bad for defect of parties and the notice to quit was illegal.