ANIL MEHTA Vs. SATYAPAL VASHISHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner tenant, at the appellate stage, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of written statement. He also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for leading additional evidence before the appellate Court. The following amendment was sought to be made :

(2.) Appellate Court, after considering both the prayers, observed as under :

(3.) Present revision petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The discretion exercised by the appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. Revisional power should not be exercised to disturb discretion of the Court below, if the view formulated is one, which is possible. Mr. Amit Rawal appearing for the respondent has further stated that it has been held in various judicial pronouncements that personal need of the landlord is to be seen as it subsisted on the date of filing of the petition. To counter this argument, Mr. Vikas Sagar has stated that a subsequent event can also be taken into consideration by the appellate Court.