BABULAL Vs. MUKAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi on April 30, 1976.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Mukan Chand filed a suit against the defendants Babulal and Ruparam for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants from a shop situated in Sumerpur as described in para 1 of the plaint It was contended by the plaintiff that according to the rent -rote executed on December 4, 1969 the rate of rent was Rs. 61/ - per month. It was also contended that the defendant No. 2 has not paid the arrears, of rent from December 4, 1971 and that a portion of the shop in question has been sub -let to the defendant No. 2. Thus, the ejectment was claimed on the ground of default and sub -letting.

(3.) THE application for amendment has primarily been moved with a view to cover the default which has been committed by the defendant, Babu Lal, in payment of rent, and in not depositing the arrears of rent, interest and cost on the first date of hearing. The first date of hearing was May 29, 1973, while the defendant claimed that he is ready and willing to pay the rent upto the date when the issues are framed. The issues were framed on February 29, 1974. Section 6 of the Act lays down the procedure for fixation of standard rent. Section 6(5) lays down the date from which the standard rent would be liable to be paid, if so determined by the Court. The proviso to Sub -section (5) of Section 6 lays down that in case of a tenant who institutes a suit under this section after the expiration of six months from the commencement of ills tenancy on the ground of the rent agreed upon being excessive, be the date of the institution of such suit or such later date as the Court may in the circumstances of the case deem reasonable. The defendants in their written statements did not take the plea that the rent, as agreed to between them and the landlord, was in any way excessive, and that they desired that the standard rent was taken for the first time on July 5, 1976 when the suit was instituted as early as on August 23, 1973. The permission to amend the written Statement, if granted at this stage, would mean permitting the defendants to set up entirely a new case which would be inconsistent with the case with which they came to the Court of law. The proposed amendment of the written statement, if allowed at this stage, would also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. As the question of standard rent was not agitated from the very beginning the plea for fixation of standard rent is still open to the defendant -appellant, and, if he so chooses, he may file a suit under Section 6 of the Act. The application for amendment of the pleadings is hereby dismissed as being without any force.