TIRUPATI VINIMOY PVT. LTD. Vs. KARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against Order No.27 dated January 9, 2018 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.35486 of 2014 whereby the petitioner's application for amendment of written statement has been rejected by the learned Court below.

(2.) The short background of the petitioner's case is that he is the defendant in the instant suit filed by the opposite party praying for eviction on the ground that he has refused to pay the rent as per terms of the agreement admittedly entered into by and between the petitioner and opposite party. After entering appearance in the suit, the petitioner filed a written statement sometime in December 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the written statement sometime in November 2017. By filing the application for amendment, the petitioner has sought to substitute paragraphs 8 to 36 from his written statement and instead sought to incorporate 33 altogether new paragraphs.

(3.) On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 79,880/- being the rent for the period August 1, 2014 till November 4, 2014 at the rate of Rs. 19,970/- per month. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of shop room from the defendant. In the plaint the case made out by the opposite party is that although, there was an agreement with the defendant/petitioner for month to month payment at enhanced rate, he paid such rent as agreed to. But, after August 1, 2014, the defendant tendered rent in respect of the tenanted premises at a reduced rate thereby refusing to make payment of the rent as agreed to in the agreement for tenancy which according to the plaintiff and the defendant was executed on March 17, 2005. In the written statement originally filed by the defendant/petitioner, he admitted that his tenancy is governed by the Agreement dated March 17, 2005 and there was no whisper that the said agreement was not a tenancy agreement but a registered lease agreement. Subsequently, in 2017 the application for amendment has been sought for. Defendant has changed his stand and sought to take a new stand that he is not a tenant under the said agreement and the plaintiff has no right to proceed for eviction against him on the basis of the said unregistered agreement, rather the defendant's agreement was an agreement for lease and that too the same was registered in 2018. In the amendment application, the petitioner has sought to canvass before this Court that the registration of the said agreement was pending since 2005 and only in 2018, the said registration has been completed. Therefore, nothing illegal on the part of the defendant to take out an application for amendment to bring such facts by way of amendment application, his tenancy is governed by a registered agreement for lease.