M. K. MONGHA v. TRIBHUVAN NATH PURI — 1997 DIGILAW 279 (DEL)

Jaspal Singh ( 1 ) IT is an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application by the present petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has given birth to this order. ( 2 ) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the arguments advanced, a brief resume of the facts is called for. Respondents No. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed a suit for possession against respondent No. 3 and so also against the present petitioner. It was alleged therein that as the plaintiffs happended to be the landlords and as they had let out the premises to respondent No. 3 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4500. 00 and as the tenancy of respondent No. 3 had been validly terminated, therefore, they were entitled to a decree for possession. They arrayed the present petitioner also as a defendant in the suit on the ground that he was in unauthorised possession of a part of the suit premises. Written statements, in response to the suit, were filed and the present respondent No. 3 admitted therein to be a tenant under the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500. 00. It was also admitted that a notice of termination of tenancy had been served and that the tenancy had been validly terminated. The rate of rent was also admitted to be Rs. 4,500. 00 per month. It was also not denied that a part of the suit premises had been sub-let to the present petitioner. As for as the present petitioner is concerned, he took the plea that it was respondent No. 3 who was the owner-landlord and that the premises under his tenancy had been taken on rent from respondent No. 3. He categorically stated that the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 had no locus standi, that they had no right to terminate the tenancy of respondent No. 3 and that in any case, no order or decree for possession could be passed. Consequent upon the pleadings issues were framed and while the trial was going on respondent No. 3 chose not to appear as a witness or to examine any witness. The rest of the evidence i. e. the evidence of the present petitioner and of the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 is yet to be recorded. Consequent upon the pleadings issues were framed and while the trial was going on respondent No. 3 chose not to appear as a witness or to examine any witness. The rest of the evidence i. e. the evidence of the present petitioner and of the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 is yet to be recorded. Before this evidence could be recorded, the present petitioner moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of his written statement which, as already noticed above, is the bone of contention. ( 3 ) BY way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the present petitioner sought to take the plea that the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 were not the owners-landlords of the premises in his possession and that their Predecessor ininterest had executed a Will by virtue of which the premises in possession of the present petitioner had not fallen to their share and that consequently the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 had no right, title or interest in the premises in question and as such were not entitled to a decree for possession. The second plea sought to be taken was that as the premises had been let out to respondent No. 3 not on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500. 00 but only on a rent of Rs. 2,500. 00 per month, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The application, however, did not find favour with the learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the same. Hence this civil revision. ( 4 ) MR. Sunil Malhotra, Advocate who appears for the plaintiffs-respondents I and 2 has submitted that by virtue of application for amendment of the written statement the present petitioner is seeking to take pleas which would broaden the dispute unnecessarily and that in any case the pleas sought to be taken were not relevant to the proceedings. It is also stated that since the petitioner in the original written statement categorically took the plea that it was respondent No. 3 who was the owner-landlord, therefore, the fresh plea sought to betaken that the plaintiffs- respondents 1 and 2 are not the owners of the premises in question and, therefore, not landlords would be contrary to the stand already taken and that consequently, this plea could not be allowed. It has further been submitted that since respondent No. 3 had admitted himself to be the tenant under the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500. 00 , it is not open to the present petitioner to allege that the rent was Rs. 2,500. 00 only. I may also at this stage notice that the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has lent her support to the submissions made by Mr. Malhotra. ( 5 ) MR. Narula appearing for the petitioner, however, has found the arguments so advanced unpalatable. He has submitted that since there is a collusion between the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 and as on account of that collusion respondent No. 3 has admitted practically all the allegations made in the plaint and as further in view of that collusion respondent No. 3 has not even cared to lead any evidence, it had become imperative for the petitioner-to seek amendment of the written statement with pleas as noticed above. He has further submitted that in any case in the written statement filed originally by the petitioner it was categorically stated that the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and: 2 had no locus standi and further that Civil Court had no jurisdiction. Thus, as per him what the petitioner is now seeking is only to clarify the grounds on which those challenges had been raised in the original written statement. In any case, he submits, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the pleas now sought to be taken up needed to be allowed in the interest of justice. I tend to agree. ( 6 ) A bare perusal of the original written statement filed by the present petitioner would go to reveal that the locus standi of the plaintiffs-respondents No. I and 2 to file the suit and seek relief had been challenged in clear and unambiguous terms. It was also pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also pleaded that the tenancy of respondent No. 3 had not been validly terminated and that no decree could be passed for possession as sought for by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2. The basic pleas remain to be the same. It was also pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was also pleaded that the tenancy of respondent No. 3 had not been validly terminated and that no decree could be passed for possession as sought for by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2. The basic pleas remain to be the same. What the petitioner is now seeking to show is that if respondent No. 3 is taken to be not the owner-landlord and even if on that score he fails, still the plaintiffs-respondents No. I and 2 are not entitled to the reliefs because they too are neither the owners nor landlords of the premises in question. I may hasten to add that in the plaint it was nowhere alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 that they were the owners of the premises and consequently no admission with regard to that was made. In other words, the petitioner is not seeking to wriggle out of any admission. ( 7 ) AS already noticed above, there was a clear and unambiguous plea that the Civil Courthad no jurisdiction to try the suitand givere lief. The fact that respondent No. 3 was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500. 00 was also disputed. Under the circumstances, the plea now being sought to be taken that the agreed rate of rent of respondent No. 3 was Rs. 2,500. 00 is not foreign to the plea already taken. ( 8 ) IN short thus, the amendments if allowed would not introduce any fundamental change in the character of the defence put in by the petitioner. We can also ill afford to forget that it is the plea of the petitioner that plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 are in collusion with each other and that they have joined hands to somehow get the premises in possession of the petitioner vacated. What is more, the suit is still at the stage of recording of evidence. The evidence of the petitioner and of the plaintiffs-respondents is yet to be recorded. This being the position, I feel that by allowing the application no such prejudice would be caused as cannot be compensated by way of costs. ( 9 ) AS a result, the impugned order is set aside. The evidence of the petitioner and of the plaintiffs-respondents is yet to be recorded. This being the position, I feel that by allowing the application no such prejudice would be caused as cannot be compensated by way of costs. ( 9 ) AS a result, the impugned order is set aside. Civil revision is accepted and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed subject, however, to payment of Rs. 5000. 00 as costs. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Judge on 7th April, 1997.