MOHANT BIKRAM DASS Vs. NIRMAL SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner landlord filed a petition for ejectment against the respondents before the Rent Controller. The ejectment petition was allowed by the Rent Controller. This order was challenged in appeal by the respondent. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, respondents moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend paragraph 2 of the written statement. This prayer was opposed by the petitioner, but the learned Appellant Authority, vide its order dated 21st December, 1979 allowed the amendment application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 300/-. This order is sought to be impugned in this revision.

(2.) The main burden of arguments addressed by Mr. P.K. Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for amendment was not bonafide made and has been made solely to delay the ejectment proceedings. The learned counsel contends that so much so Nirmal Singh one of the tenants even did not appear in the witness box to oppose the ejectment proceedings. It may be pointed out that the written statement which is sought to be amended is to the fact that Shri Har Ujjagar Singh who was the father of the respondent was the tenant of the demised premises and on his death the tenancy was inherited by the respondents and thus they were not liable to be ejected. On the previous date of hearing I asked the learned counsel for the respondents to show the receipts regarding payment of the rent by Shri Har Ujjagar Singh who died in the year 1969; The learned counsel for the respondents submits that some of the receipts have been attached with the application for amendment which was supported by an affidavit and no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent produced a number of other receipts at the time of hearing the name of Har Ujjagar Singh and the said receipts appear to pertaining to the house in dispute which also appeared to be issued by the petitioner landlord. This would show that the application for amendment was not malafide made, but a plea was available to the respondents could not be a inadvertantly taken in the written statement which has been allowed to be taken by the learned Appellate Authority. However, it is a question of merits whether Har Ujjagar Singh was a tenant under the landlord or not. Nothing said here will prejudice the case of the parties, but the production of the receipts along with the application for amendment would go to show that there is a bonafide claim on behalf of the tenants that Har Ujjagar Singh was the tenant of the house.

(3.) Mr. Palli, learned counsel contends that Nirmal Singh are not brothers and are not sons of Har Ujjagar Singh. This is again a question which pertains to the merits of the case and will be determined in pursuance of the impugned order.