ABDUL AHAD KHAN Vs. GHULAM MOHAMAD BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed on 28-4-1982, by the City Judge, Srinagar, declining the defendant's prayer for amendment of the written statement. The suit has been brought by the landlord for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of his personal necessity. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant asked for permission to amend the written statement The proposed amendment was aimed at raising the plea to the effect that the tenant's two brothers have left their studies and are now doing typing job along with the tenant in the disputed shop. The trial Court rejected the motion for the amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment fell outside the scope of the suit

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner is that the view expressed by the trial Court is erroneous. He urged that in determining the reasonableness of the personal necessity, the Court is required to have regard to the comparative advantage or disadvantage of the landlord and of the tenant. He further urged that the tenant would include the members of his family residing with him and, consequently the requirement of the brothers set up by the tenant was germane to the suit. In this context, he contended that the trial Court was unjustified in holding that the proposed amendment fell outside the scope of the suit.

(3.) In reply, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent contended that there can be no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that in judging the reasonableness of the personal necessity, the Court is required to have regard to the comparative advantage and disadvantage of the landlord and of the tenant, but the tenant would not include the members of his family residing with him.