(1.) FACTS of the case are that Gauran Devi respondent- petitioner filed an ejectment petition against the appellant-respondent. The ground of ejectment was non-payment of rental arrears. She claimed rental arrears with effect from June 1, 1976, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. In the written statement, the appellant-respondent alleged that he paid rent from June 1, 1976, to September 30, 1976, to Sitara Lal, son of the petitioner-non-applicant. Thereafter, the petition was tried. During trial, the respondent filed receipts R-5 and R-13. According to the respondent, R-5 was issued by Gauran Devi whereby she accepted the rent for the months of July, August and September, 1976 and vide R-13 Sitara Lal accepted the rent of April, May and June, 1976. The Rent Controller disbelieved the payment of rent to Gauran Devi under receipt R-5 on the ground that there is no such pleading in the written statement of the respondent-tenant. When this receipt was filed in the Court, the tenant moved a petition that permission be given to him to lead additional evidence because Gauran Devi refused the execution of receipt R-5. The trial Court allowed that petition. The applicant-landlady assailed that order by way of revision which was dismissed with the observation that she will also get an opportunity to lead any evidence in rebutal. Thereafter, the tenant examined handwriting expert who compared the thumb impression of Gauran Devi with the thumb impression which is put on receipt R-5 and gave his report. This evidence was considered by the Rent Controller and he disbelieved this evidence of payment of rent to Gauran Devi of the said months on the ground that tenant has not pleaded so in his written statement and he passed the ejectment order against the tenant on the ground on non-payment of these rental arrears and interests thereon.
(2.) THE tenant filed an appeal against the ejectment order. When the appeal was under consideration he filed petition under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment that in para 4(a) of his written statement, after the words 'Sitara Lal' and before the words 'upto' the words "for April, May and June, 1976 and Gauran Devi from 1.7.1976" be added. Thus, he wanted to plead that he has paid rent to Sitara Lal of the months of April, May and June, 1976, and to Gauran Devi of the months of July, August and September. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court allowed this amendment petition.
(3.) THE respondent-tenant's counsel has contended that no amendment can be disallowed on the ground of delay only. It is also settled law that a party can be allowed to withdraw his admission made earlier. He also submits that these technicalities should not come in the way of dispensation of justice. What admission he made earlier, he is not withdrawing that admission rather he is trying to explain it. He has relied upon Panchdeo Narain v. Km. Jyoti Sahay, AIR 1983 SC 462 and Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1967 SC 1267.