Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 19 (JK)

Soba Ram v. Sanjeev Sharma

2002-02-22

S.K.GUPTA

body2002
Heared Mr. O.P Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Oswal, Advocate appearing for the respondent, as well. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I propose to dispose of this Revision by a short order. By the impugned order dated 3-2-2001 passed by learned District Judge, Udhampur, the application of the petitioner, Soba Ram, for amendment of written statement under order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been declined at appellate stage. Petitioner, Soba Ram, prayed for introducing the following pleas in a suit for eviction filed by landlord, Plaintiff - respondent, on the grounds :-- (a) That since the plaintiff premises were taken on rent by the petitioner-defendant from one Parminder Singh and not from the respondent-plaintiff, relationship of landlord and tenants did not exist between them and that petitioner did not attorn the plaintiff-landlord as owner; (b) That a suit for ejectment filed by the predecessor-in-interest, in the plaintiff-respondent, against Parminder singh in the Trial Court was withdrawan, stood filed by the plaintiff-respondent without securing permission for filing a fresh suit, was barred under order 23 CPC: and (c) plea of estopple. On the filing of demurrer by the respondent-plaintiff, in controverting the contention that the pleas sought to be introduced by amendment in the written statement are irrevelevant to determine the controversy between the parties and further that the issues raised between the parties on their pleadings before the Trial Court sufficiently covered their rival contentions, the Appellate Court declined to grant the prayer of the petitioner and dismissed the application being devoid of merit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner impugned its correctness in this Revision. Beyond disputed facts emerging out of the record that a suit for eviction was filed by Sanjeev Sharma, plaintiff - respondent, in claiming to be owner of the demised premises on the strength of sale deed dated 6th March, 1985. The eviction of the defendant-petitioner was sought on the grounds of personal necessity and having committed three legal defaults of two months each with a period of 18 month in the payment of rent. The petitioner-defendant in his written statement admitted to be a tenant of the suit shop, but, however, denied to attorn plaintiff-respondent as his landlord. The eviction of the defendant-petitioner was sought on the grounds of personal necessity and having committed three legal defaults of two months each with a period of 18 month in the payment of rent. The petitioner-defendant in his written statement admitted to be a tenant of the suit shop, but, however, denied to attorn plaintiff-respondent as his landlord. It is also borne out from the plaint that the suit premises are stated to have been purchased by the plaintiff-respondent vide sale deed dated 6-3-1985 from the Dalpat Sharma and Chander Kant Sharma, sons of Pt.Amar Nath Sharma. This clearly envisages that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is pure and simple for the ejectment of a tenant on the grounds provided in the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act for his personal necessity and the commission of three legal defaults, in which the defendant admitted to be tenant of the suit shop, but declined to attorn the plaintiff- respondent as owner, who is alleged to have purchased the property from the heirs of Pt.Amar Nath Sharma as far back as in 1985 vide registered sale deed.The defendant-petitioner did not question the title of the plaintiff respondent after the latter purchased the Tentanted premises from the heirs of Pt. Amar Nath Sharma till the filing of the written statement in the suit in 1992 and the application for amendment made only during appeal on 23-7-2000. Undoubtedly, the amendment should alaways be allowed under order 6 Rule 17, where it facilitates the adjudication of the suit for eviction between the parties. But if the proposed amendment would displace the plaintiffs suit or introduce new and inconsistent case, and the application is made at a belated stage in appeal, the amendment should be refused. It is pertinent to point out that the withdrawal of the suit by the heirs of Amar Nath, from whom the plaintiff is alleged to have purchased the suit property, should not affect his right to commence the lis against the tenant thereafter. It is pertinent to point out that the withdrawal of the suit by the heirs of Amar Nath, from whom the plaintiff is alleged to have purchased the suit property, should not affect his right to commence the lis against the tenant thereafter. The purchaser would automatically step into the shoes of the vendor after the sale of the property and the tenant would become the tenant of the purchaser and withdrawal of the suit by the vendor prior to the sale of the property would not affect the right of the purchaser to proceed against the tenant of the premises by filing suit for eviction, if he so desires, and the Plea of estopple would not be available in such a case . The Court below has dealt with this matter in detail in its judgment by giving a clear exposition of facts and law applicable thereto in declining the plea of the petitioner to allow the amendment of the written statement. The petitioner-defendant has admitted himself to be tenant of the suit premises and in such an event, how would he improve his case irrespective of the fact whether the Parvinder Singh or plaintiff happens to be the owner/landlord. The amendent, however, cannot be allowed to introduce the plea taken in the application to be introduced in the written statement, so as to totally displace the case of the plaintiff and cause him irretrievable prejudice. The order impugned,in my view, does not suffer from any infirmity to be interfered with in Revision. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this Revision and is hereby dismissed. Record shall be remitted back to the Trial Court forthwith, where the parties through counsel are directed to cause appearance before the court below on 28th Febuary, 2002.