RAMANAND GUPTA Vs. BANKEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.9.2004 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 6 of 1998 whereby the petition filed by defendant - opposite party for amendment of the written statement has been allowed.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff -petitioner filed the above mentioned eviction suit for eviction of the defendant -opposite party on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The opposite party appeared in the suit and filed a petition on 18.12.1999 for amendment of the written statement. However, the said petition was never pressed. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. the said petition was allowed. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 1889 of 2001. was filed by the opposite party. The said revision petition was dismissed on 18.7.2002. The opposite party thereafter filed an application to convert the eviction suit into title suit. The said petition was rejected on 29.3.2003 against which the opposite party filed Civil Revision No. 617 of 2003. The revision petition was dismissed on 20.5.2003. The trial of the suit was taken up and the petitioner examined three witnesses. At that stage the opposite party pressed the petition filed on 18.12.1999 for amendment. The said petition for amendment has been allowed by the impugned order.

(3.) ON consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on the record this much is obvious that the suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction against the opposite party on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The petition filed by the petitioner under section 15 of the B.B.C. Act was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay arrears of rent as well as current rent. The said order was challenged in the civil revision and the civil revision was dismissed. Subsequently, the opposite party also filed a petition for conversion of the eviction suit into a title suit which was rejected. It was also challenged in the civil revision which was dismissed saying that if there would be a question of title, the court may negative the claim of the plaintiff -petitioner. By the amendment as proposed the opposite party has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and has also claimed possession by virtue of agreement to sell the suit property by Pashupati Nath Sah.