BANSHI LAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 10. 02. 2009, the application submitted by the defendant-tenant under order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. for amendment of the written statement has been rejected.

(3.) THE short question for consideration before the learned court below was whether as alleged by the plaintiff-landlord, the son of the landlord is unemployed and on that basis the plaintiff-landlord is entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of his son. Admittedly, the defendant has denied in the written statement that the son of the plaintiff is not unemployed and he is working somewhere, as alleged in the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant was able to lay his hands upon certain so-called admissions of the plaintiff in support of the plea raised by the defendant that the son of the defendant-landlord is employed which would counter the plea raised by the plaintiff in the suit. It is these so-called admissions which the defendant-petitioner sought to incorporate by amending his written statement. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned trial court.