NARAIN DATT Vs. KIDAR NATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of eviction has been passed against the tenant -petitioner on the grounds that Sham Sunder landlord needs the premises for his personal use and for nonpayment of rent by the petitioner on the first date of hearing. The petition for ejectment was filed on behalf of Kedar Nath and Sham Sunder, who claimed themselves to be the landlords, along with one Brij Mohan who was residing in U.S.A. This allegation was not denied in the written statement. Mr. Sibal states that subsequently when the rent -note was filed it transpired that Kedar Nath alone was described as the landlord in that rent note According to him, on coming to know of this fact the tenant -petitioner applied for being allowed to amount his written statement but was disallowed to do so on the ground that the application had been filed after great delay. The learned Rent Controller accepted the plea that Sham Sunder landlord needed the building for his personal use and ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed.

(2.) WHEN the case came up before me for preliminary hearing on December 13, 1978, it was asserted that the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and for that reason the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of the petitioner. That ground is not being pressed by Mr. Sibal at this stage. He has challenged the decisions rendered by the learned Tribunals below on the ground that the petitioner should have been allowed to amend the written statement and to urge that since Sham Sunder was not the landlord, his ejectment could not be ordered for his personal necessity.