JAI KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order dated March 6,1991 passed by the appellate authority, Hissar by which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the respondent for amendment of the written, statement has been allowed and the case has been remanded for fresh trial. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE appellants filed a suit seeking a decree for possession of Shop No. 382-A, situate at Automobile Market, Hissar as also for the recovery of Rs. 3600/- on account of damages for use and occupation of the said shop from April 1, 1985 till December 31,1985. It was claimed that the construction of the shop was completed in the month of January 1980 and thereafter the appellants let out Shop No. 382- A to the defendant-respondent an rent at the rate of Rs. 325/per month. Later on the rent was enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month. The appellants claim that by notice dated November 1, 1983, the tenancy was terminated. The respondent having failed to hand over the vacant possession, a suit for possession and recovery of damages was consequently filed. The learned trial Court framed, 9 issues and by its judgment dated September 20, 1988, it partly decreed the suit to the extent that the plaintiff-appellants were entitled to the possession of the shop. The claim in respect of the recovery of Rs. 3600/- was dismissed as it had not been pressed by the counsel for the plaintiffs.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of this appeal, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed. In this application, it was inter alia averred that the respondent-appellant was a tenant in Shop No. 381 which belonged to Om Parkash son of Shri Manohar Lal. It was also averred that the shop was taken on rent vide rent deed dated March 7, 1980 It was further averred that while filing the written statement, it was bonafide believed that the suit related to shop No. 381 and as such, a specific plea to the above effect namely that the tenancy was not in respect of Shop No. 382-A but only in respect of Shop No. 381 belonging to Om Parkash, could sot be taken. It was claimed that the omission was bonafide and therefore, permission to amend the written statement may be given