AMRIK KARTAR SINGH Vs. BINITA SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 4-1-2017 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014 by which the application seeking amendment in the written statement has been declined, has been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014 was instituted by one Binita Singh and Satyendra Singh. Petitioner is the sole defendant in the eviction suit. Plaintiff No. 2 is the brother-in-law of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the plaintiff No. 1 is the absolute owner of a shop in a portion of the building situated over Plot No. 177 within Khata No. 37, corresponding to Municipal Ward No. 8, Holding No. 55-A/90 within Jugsalai Municipality commonly known as Mahabir Singh Market Complex. They have pleaded that the defendant is in occupation of a shop room in the said market complex and paying rent @ Rs. 625/- per month. The defendant is running a business in the name and style of "Pintu Textiles" in the said shop. Plaintiff No. 2 used to realize rent on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 from the defendant and issue rent receipt to the defendant over which defendants son namely, Maninder Singh used to put his signature on the back side of the counter-foil of the rent receipt. The suit was instituted on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement on 3-12-2014. The defendant has pleaded that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and, in fact, the land over which the suit property is situated was originally held by Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhawal Deo as landlord. The said ex-landlord through Raja Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhawal Deo as ex-proprietor of Pargana Dhabhum by a registered deed of lease dated 11-9-1947 granted Haat to Dhalbhum Traders & Industries Limited. For realizing rent from Dhalbhum Traders & Industries Limited, Jugsalai Notified Area Committee instituted Money Suit No. 11/4/62/63.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a serious dispute on the nature of payment made by the defendant to the plaintiff No. 2 inasmuch as, the defendant has pleaded that the payment was in the nature of toll and not rent for the shop occupied by the defendant still, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment in the written statement holding that the defendant used to pay rent to the plaintiff No. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that finding recorded by the trial Judge is premature and it would seriously prejudice trial in Title Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014.