LAWS(P&H)-1986-5-110

SANT SINGH Vs. DHARAM RAJ AND ANOTHER

Decided On May 22, 1986
SANT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Dharam Raj And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is just a war of words. Substantially, there seems to be not much difference as would presently be seen. The landlord -Respondent claims to have let out the demised premises for purposes of storage only. The misconduct attributed to the tenant is that he has put up a hammer and converted the same into a workshop without his permission. The tenant, on the other hand, has admitted having put up a hammer but with the written permission of the landlord. Additionally, the tenant has pleaded that he is using the premises for storage also. Now this word 'also' was sought to be scored off by the tenant but the application for amendment in that regard was disallowed, on the reasoning that this would tend to be setting up two inconsistent pleas.

(2.) HAVING heard 'earned counsel for the parties, I fail to see how such result would be achieved by the omission of the word also'. The stance of the tenant is clear and simple. He admits the activity of putting up a hammer in the premises and of using it as a store, whether it is one activity or two activities would not after the situation in any manner because the case of the tenant is that the hammer was set up in the promises with the written permission of the land -lord. If his plea is correct, then the single purpose for which the premises was let out, was allowed to be made into a dual purpose. So the magical word 'also' would not be reflective of any misconduct on behalf of the tenant. Thus, in the situation, if he wants the same to be scored off from the written statement, that would not alter the specific plea.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the amendment as prayed for is permitted to the tenant -Petitioner at the motion stage itself Allowed accordingly.