SHIV NATH TIWARY Vs. JAI NARAYAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 12.7.1994 passed by the 4th Subordinate Judge, Bettiah in Rent Suit No. 17 of 1993, rejecting the application for amendment of written statement moved by the petitioner defendant.

(2.) IT appears that Rent Suit No. 17 of 1993 is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bettiah. The suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and it was alleged that the agreed rent was Rs. 1500/- per month. IT was alleged that although the petitioner defendant vacated the premises in question in September 1992, no payment of rent was made for the period from April 1991, Onward. The copy of the written statement filed as Annexure 2 by the petitioner shows that the petitioner defendant admitted himself to be a tenant oh monthly not stated in paragraph 10 of the written statement that the petitioner-defendant always paid monthly rent in every first week of ensuing month to the plaintiff regularly till November, 1992. The petitioner-defendant moved a petition subsequently to amend his written statement in order to resile from his statement in the written statement that the tenancy was monthly. The petitioner-defendant wanted to substitute the word 'annual' in place of the word 'monthly' in the relevant paragraphs where the said word 'monthly' has been used and also wanted to delete the figure of the amount of rent "Rs. 1500/-" and in its place to substitute "Rs. 300/-". He also wanted to incorporate the date of lease in place of the date mentioned in the relevant paragraphs.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party in Paragraph 12, it has been stated that the petitioner-defendant has made statement in Paragraph 5 of the show cause in another case, being Case No. 240M/1993 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was paying rent as monthly. IN Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the opposite party has referred to the statement contained in the application under Order XXXIX, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the defendant-petitioner in which the petitioner admitted of paying monthly rent regularly. All these facts go to show that on every occasion, the petitioner always mentioned the case of monthly tenancy and subsequent in the present dispute after filing written statement, etc. on a later date he moved the application for amendment in order to change the entire defence to allege that the tenancy was annual and rent was only Rs. 300/- per annum and not Rs. 1500/- per month. Such an application, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be bona fide. After filling of the written statement only short controversy regarding payment of rent in suit remained to be decided. By amendments the defendant sought to completely change his defence in such a manner that not only the controversy regarding payment of rent but the controversy regarding monthly tenancy and the rate of rent would also have to be decided. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that only such amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for the decision of the real controversy in suit. The proposed amendment did not appear to be necessary for decision of the real controversy in the suit moreover, the trial court has exercised its desertion in the matter of allowing or not allowing the amendment and it cannot be said to be perverse.