SHYAM LAL Vs. GOPAL LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated March 11, 1988 by which he partly accepted the defendant-petitioner's application moved under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Bhilwara in the year 1985 for the recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits and ejectment against the defendant-petitioner with the allegations, in short, that initially two shops were let out in the year 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 26/-. In the year 1982, the defendant-petitioner further took one more shop and 'Nohra' on rent and agreed to pay Rs. 400/- per month for both the demised premises, i.e., three shops and one 'Nohra'. He has not paid rent since September, 1982. The defendant-petitioner averred in his written statement that there shops and 'Nohra' are in his tenancy and occupation since the year, 1966 on monthly rent of Rs. 26/-, he never agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. On the basis of the rent note dated 21.1.68 and the judgment and decree dated 25.4.78 passed in the suit filed by the plaintiff against Ganpat Lal in respect of the suit 'Nohra', the learned trial Court held that the defendant's version is not correct that three shops and one 'Nohra' are in his possession and tenancy since the beginning, the suit 'Nohra' was previously in the possession and tenancy of Ganpat Lal since April, 1975 and, accordingly, determined the provisional rent in respect of the three shops and one 'Nohra' at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month by its order dated July 13, 1987. In September, 1987, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of his written-statement. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge partly allowed the application so far it sought amendment for incorporating the pleas for the fixation of standard rent. The amendment sought regarding the details of the demised premises was not allowed on the ground that the defendant wants to wriggle out from the admission made by him in his written statement.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner duly supported the order under revision.