SARWAN KUMAR Vs. RAM PARTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarwan Kumar petitioner is the owner of the shop in dispute situated within the Municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri which stands let out to Ram Partap respondent No. 1 at Rs. 30/- per month. The petitioner filed a petition for ejectment against the respondents on various grounds, including that of sub-letting of the shop by Ram Partap respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 1 the allegation regarding the sub-letting of the shop by him in favour of respondent No. 2 was denied. It was averred that respondent No. 2 was his relative and he also works in the shop in dispute. After the parties had concluded their evidence the arguments were heard on May 22, 1982, and the case was adjourned to May 25, 1982, for orders. In the meantime, respondent No. 1 moved an application for amendment of the written statement to the extent that respondent No. 2 was also his partner in the business. This application was opposed by the petitioner. The Rent Controller vide order dated June 9, 1982, allowed the amendment on payment of Rs. 60/- as costs. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application for amendment was made by respondent No. 1 at a very late stage and that too for taking an inconsistent plea which will amount to setting up of a new case. I am not impressed with this contention. Respondent No. 1 had already taken a plea that Sat Narain respondent No. 2 was working on the shop in dispute and that he was his relation. The new plea of the respondent No. 1 that Sat Narain respondent No. 2 is his partner is not inconsistent with the plea already taken. This also does not amount to setting up of a new case. The new plea at the best would further clarify the status of respondent No. 2 vis-a-vis respondent No. 1. The discretion exercised by the Rent Controller for allowing respondent No. 1 to make the proposed amendment in the written statement is neither illegal nor irregular to justify interference.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in view of the amendment allowed in the written statement at the instance of respondent No. 1 the petitioner shall be at liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal on that point. The contention is correct.