BUGLI DEVI Vs. TARLOKI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 24th October, 1980, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant-petitioners, was dismissed. The landlord-respondent has sought ejectment of the tenants on the ground of subletting to Anand Kumar. The plea taken in the written statement is that he is the adopted son of the tenant Smt. Bugli Devi and, therefore, under the circumstances, there was no question of any subletting. In the replication filed on behalf of the landlord, it was pleaded that the said adoption is wrong and illegal. Nothing more than this was stated. No ground was put forward as to why the adoption was wrong and illegal. The landlord appeared as A. W. 3 before the Rent Controller. On a Court question, it was stated by him that, according to the custom in Ambala Cantt., a boy more than the age of 15 years could not be adopted. Since it had conic in evidence for the first time and that, too, on a Court-question, this necessitated the filing of the application for amendment of the written statement. The application was contested on behalf of the landlord and after hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the same by the impugned order. The main reason which weighed with the learned Rent Controller for dismissing the application is that it was made at a highly belated stage. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the tenants have come up in revision in this Court.

(2.) During the Course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in case amendment of the written statement is not allowed, he may be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal to this fact which has come in evidence for the first time in the statement of A. W. 3. According to the learned counsel, the amendment of the written statement was sought so that he may not be debarred to lead the evidence in rebuttal on that account as this was not specifically pleaded in the written statement.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in this contention, The landlord himself never pleaded in his replication that the adoption was bad because of certain custom in Ambala Cantt. for the first time it was stated by A. W. 3 and that too on a Court question. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the tenant- petitioners are entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal which, according to them, is yet to start. With these observations, this revision-petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.