NIRANJANLAL Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of order dated 7. 11. 1998 of the Additional Civil Judge (JD) Alwar whereby the petitioner (defendant)'s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in written statement was declined.

(2.) THE respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the rented premises on the grounds of :- (a) default in payment of rent & (b) sub-letting. THE description of the suit shop as given in para 1 of the plaint is exactly the same as described in the rent note dated 12. 7. 69 executed between the landlord and tenant. THE defendant in para 1 of written statement admitted that he had taken the suit shop with Verandah infront of it on rent and that he had executed the rent note dated 12. 7. 69. Admittedly there is no dispute as regards the rented shop. THE dispute appears to have been confined only to the question as regards the change allegedly made in nature of the rented premises by the plaintiff in the verandah in front of a stair case & `gali', which according to the defendant is a part of the rented premises but as per the plaintiff was not let out to the defendant. THE case of the plaintiff is that since it was not a part of the rented premises as described in the rent note dated 12. 7. 69 executed between the parties and hence he has every right to bring forth any change whatsoever at his discretion being the landlord. This fact has been vehemently disputed by the defendant on the ground that the verandah infront of the stair case is a part of the rented premises and during the pendency of the suit, the landlord (plaintiff) by taking law into his hands has constructed a brick' wall (Pardi) resulting in blocking the way to stairs and `gali' which was `shamlati' (commonly used) before the change allegedly made by the landlord.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the matter in its true perspective, the ratio of decisions as referred to by Shri Garg are herein briefly stated. IN N. K. Jain's case (supra), the trial Court rejected application for amendment of written statement after considering merits of the case. This Court held that the trial court should not have gone into merits of case without allowing amendment application and accordingly the order of the trial Court was set aside in revision petition by observing that normally case should have been remanded but looking to the fact that eviction suit on ground of personal necessity is pending since more than five years amendment application was allowed in revision petition. IN Niyazuddin vs. Jugal Kishore (supra), the amendment in written statement was sought after closure of plaintiff's evidence. This Court observed that the amendment sought for was not such as to change nature of case nor otherwise barred under any statutory provision and therefore, the trial Court committed gross error in rejecting the same.