MISS INDRA JAIN Vs. BHUSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.1985 of the Rent Controller, whereby the tenant was allowed to amend his written statement.

(2.) BY virtue of the amendment, the tenant Bhushan Lal wanted to plead that the alleged partition between the co-sharers was sham and fictitious transaction and, therefore, Miss Indra Jain, who claimed herself to be the landlady, was not the owner of the demised premises. This application was resisted by the landlady Miss Indra Jain, inter alia, on the ground that, in the earlier written statement, the tenant has admitted that she was the owner and landlady qua the demised premises and, therefore, the tenant could not be called to withdraw that admission. In any case, the tenant could not be allowed to challenge the family arrangement between the co-sharers. However, the learned Rent Controller found that, by way of the proposed amendment, the nature of the ejectment-application is not likely to be changed and, for the just conclusion of the petition, it is necessary that the present facts be allowed to be added in the written statement. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlady Miss Indra Jain has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The tenant could not be allowed to contest the partition or family arrangement between the co-sharers in these proceedings. Admittedly, the respondent Bhushan Lal is a tenant on the demised premises. That being so, the amendment allowed was not at all necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. In these proceedings, the real controversy is as to whether the landlady is entitled to seek ejectment of her tenant on the ground available under the Rent Act or not when it is admitted that the status of Bhaushan Lal respondent is that of a tenant.