JOGINDER KAUR Vs. SARASWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a peculiar case where some relatives appear to have combined together to defeat the claim of the opposite party for possession by eviction of her tenant. It appears that the property in question which is in Patiala, consists of at least two rooms and was at one time evacuee property. Ore room in that property is claimed to have been taken on rent in 1960 by Sant Singh of the present petitioner from his brother-in-law Gurbux Singh. Gurbux Singh's sister was married to Sant Singh. Sant Singh's sister is still married to Gurbux Singh. Whether that rent deed is genuine or not, is no concern of mine in these proceedings. The other room in the house was in the occupation of Saraswati Devi Respondent. It is the case of Joginder Kaur petitioner that her sister's husband Gurbux Singh left Patiala for Delhi in November, 1970, and therefore on June 17, 1971, she executed a rent deed in favour of Saraswati Devi Respondent. Though it is not known from the present proceedings whether Joginder Kaur's husband Sant Singh ever paid any rent to Gurbux Singh or not, it is the common case of both the sides that Joginder Kaur petitioner has been paying rent to Saraswati Devi since the execution of rent deed, dated June 17, 1971, till at least the application for her eviction was filed by the respondent on July 24, 1972.

(2.) The eviction of the petitioner was sought on various grounds including personal necessity. After evidence had been led in the case by the landlord-respondent as well as by the tenant-petitioner, an application was made before the Rent Controller on January 5, 1974 by Gurbux Singh wherein he stated that he had been in possession of the whole house since 1947, that he had given the room in dispute to Sant Singh on rent in 1960, that he had gone to Delhi in November, 1970 to start his business there, that the other room was still in his possession, and that taking undue advantage of his absence from Patiala, Saraswati Devi respondent had played a fraud on Joginder Kaur petitioner and by misrepresentation of facts obtained a rent note in her favour. He further stated that having come to know on the date of application that Saraswati Devi respondent was alleging herself to be the allottee and owner of the house and was trying to obtain possession of tenanted premises by this indirect manner, he had made application, being the real and true owner of the house, for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings so that the status of the landlord and title to the property may be declared. The application was opposed by Saraswati Devi respondent, but it is stated to be still pending. During the pendency of that application, the present petitioner submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Rent Controller for amendment of her written statement so as to introduce therein the following two pleas in the substitution of her earlier admissions about the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller by his detailed order dated April 14, 1974, dismissed the petitioner's application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner was at the fag end of the trial of the eviction application, trying to introduce in her written statement a plea which was absolutely inconsistent with the initial position expressly taken up by her in her original reply to the eviction petition. Though the relationship of landlord and tenant and the execution of the rent deed had been admitted in original written statement of the petitioner without alleging any kind of misrepresentation or fraud, such a plea was now sought to be introduced into the same.