LABH RAM Vs. GURDIAL SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated September 14, 1989, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement, filed on behalf of the petitioner (the alleged sub-tenant) was dismissed.

(2.) GURDIAL Singh, landlord, filed an ejectment application on January 4, 1986, against his tenant Subash Chand, and Labh Ram who was alleged to be the sub-tenant. No notice was issued to Labh Ram, but one B.L. Sharma, Advocate, appeared on his behalf and filed the written statement in which he admitted the allegations made in the ejectment application. When the petitioner Labh Ram came to know that somebody on his behalf had filed the written statement, he moved an application for withdrawing the said written statement. However, the said application was dismissed on December 12, 1986. Later on the landlord moved the application that the statement of the petitioner Labh Ram be recorded which was done on August 3, 1987. Therein, he denied the allegations made in the ejectment application. He then moved the present application for amendment of the written statement which was contested on behalf of the landlord. According to the averments made in the application, it was stated that Gurdial Singh, landlord, got his signatures on the blank papers and later on got typed the written statement according to his own version and the allegations and the same was filed in Court through Shri B.L. Sharma, Advocate. In the reply filed on behalf of the landlord, the said allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the said Labh Ram could not be allowed to withdraw the admission made by him in his written statement. The learned trial Court relying upon M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving v. M/s Ladha Ram and Company, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 680 came to the conclusion that the admissions once made could not be withdrawn and thus dismissed the application.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the so-called admission made by petitioner should have been allowed to be withdrawn or explained away. It was held in Panchdeo Narain's case (supra) that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away and, therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of fact cannot be allowed to be withdrawn. In the present case, no notice was ever issue in the ejectment application to the petitioner Labh Ram and that itself was sufficient to show that the written statement was filed on his behalf by somebody and thus, on these peculiar facts, the petitioner was entitled to amend his written statement. Since the application was a belated one, he could be burdened with costs.