NARESH KUMAR GOEL Vs. RAJINDER PAUL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.9.2000 of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh whereby defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. This application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant has arisen in these circumstances;

(2.) Ram Nath Sharma through Rajinder Paul Sharma his general attorney filed suit for ejectment against Naresh Kumar Goel -defendant from up -stair room covering 300 sq. ft in factory shed No.728 Phase -II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and also for the recovery of Rs.500/ - as damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the aforesaid up -stair room. It was alleged in that plaint that he is owner and landlord of factory shed No.728 Phase -11, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and also for the recovery of Rs.500/ - as damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of his aforesaid up -stare room. It was alleged in the plaint that he is owner and landlord of the factory shed No. 728 Phase -11, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and Rajinder Paul Sharma is his duly authorised attorney. Naresh Kumar Goel is tenant under him in respect of one up -stair room covering 300 sq.ft. in factory shed No.728, Phase -II, Industrial Area. Chandigarh at a monthly rental of Rs.1500/ - including water and electricity charges. Factory shed is exempted from the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Tenancy of the defendant was terminated vide registered notice dated 29.3.1990. Defendant duly received the said notice on 26.4.1990. He was requested to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question on or before 15 days of the receipt of the notice but he failed to vacate and hand over the possession. After the termination of the tenancy the possession of the defendant is unauthorised far as one up -stair room covering 300 sq. ft in factory shed No. 728 Phase -II, Industrial Area Chandigarh is concerned. Besides, defendant is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.3000/ - per month (sic) use and occupation. He, however claims Rs.500/ - only as damages as arrears or (sic) without prejudice to his right to claim future damages at the rate of Rs.3000/ - per month. In nutshell, this suit was filed by the plaintiff under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act after terminating the letter's tenancy. Defendant Naresh Kumar Goel contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he is occupying the demised premises under a valid rent agreement dated 16.5.1987. In the rent note, there is no provision of notice to be served by either of the parties. The provisions of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are applicable to the entire Union Territory Chandigarh. As such, plaintiff cannot ask for his ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant also pleaded that no notice terminating his tenancy was served upon him. Plaintiff has not disclosed rent agreement dated 16.5.1987 executed between him (Ram Nath Sharma) and the defendant. Photo copy of the said written statement dated 16.5.1987 was produced only on 14.2.1991 -when defendant made application for its production on dated 3.12.1990.

(3.) Vide order dated 31.3.1994 trial court struck off the defence of the defendant and vide judgment dated 22.9.1994 decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that he was entitled to vacant possession of the demised premises by way of ejectment of the defendant. Plaintiff was also held entitled to recover from the defendant Rs.500/ - as damages alongwith costs of the suit. He was also held entitled to recover Rs.1500/ - as damages from the date of suit still the vacant possession was delivered to him.