HAKIM CHAND Vs. RAJ MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATTER was heard finally with the consent of the parties. In the instant revision petition the defendant petitioners seek to challenge the order dated October 31, 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge Baran whereby the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the plaintiff respondent seeking amendment of plaint was allowed. The parties hereinafter shall be referred in the same manner as they were arrayed in the plaint.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the plaintiff land lord during the pendency of suit for eviction moved an application u/o. 6 Rule 17 CPC. on August 9, 2000 with the averments that rent from November 7, 1999 to August 6, 2000 was not paid by the defendant tenants, therefore this ground of default in making payment of rent may be allowed to be added in the plaint. The defendants did not file reply to the application and opposed it orally. Learned court below allowed the application as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) IN Lallu Narain vs. Ratan Chand Lunia (7), following question was referred to the Division Bench - "does the decision of this Court in Prem Lal vs. Jadav Chand hold good after the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanpal Chettiar vs. Yeshodai Ammal (8)" Answering the reference the Division Bench observed in para 51 thus - ". . . . The observation regarding furnishing of cause of action based on determination of tenancy, does not hold good in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the suit for eviction is to be founded on the grounds set forth in the Rent Act. So far as the question of amendment of the plaint is concerned, it may be stated that adding a new ground stands altogether on a different footing. . . To that extent the view taken in Prem Lal's case stands overruled. "