Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 15 (PAT)

Ramanand Gupta v. Bankey Lal

2005-01-06

R.N.PRASAD

body2005
Judgment 1. The Civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.9.2004 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 6 of 1998 whereby the petition filed by defendant- opposite party for amendment of the written statement has been allowed. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the above mentioned eviction suit for eviction of the defendant-opposite party on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The opposite party appeared in the suit and filed a petition on 18.12.1999 for amendment of the written statement. However, the said petition was never pressed. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 15 of the B.B.C. Act. the said petition was allowed. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 1889 of 2001 was filed by the opposite party. The said revision petition was dismissed on 18.7.2002. The opposite party thereafter filed an application to convert the eviction suit into title suit. The said petition was rejected on 29.3.2003 against which the opposite party filed Civil Revision No. 617 of 2003. The revision petition was dismissed on 20.5.2003. The trial of the suit was taken up and the petitioner examined three witnesses. At that stage the opposite party pressed the petition filed on 18.12.1999 for amendment. The said petition for amendment has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment proposed was to the effect that the petitioner is not the landlord rather the landlord is one Pashupati Nath Sah and the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by him. Moreover, Pashupati Nath Sah wanted to sell the suit property and for the said purpose he executed an agreement to sell to the opposite party. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner such amendment cannot be allowed as there is no need of deciding the title in the eviction suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the amendment is necessary as the opposite party has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself and has claimed that Pashupati Nath Sah is his landlord who has entered into an agreement to sell. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the amendment is necessary as the opposite party has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself and has claimed that Pashupati Nath Sah is his landlord who has entered into an agreement to sell. 4. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on the record this much is obvious that the suit was filed by the petitioner for eviction against the opposite party on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. The petition filed by the petitioner under section 15 of the B.B.C. Act was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay arrears of rent as well as current rent. The said order was challenged in the civil revision and the civil revision was dismissed. Subsequently, the opposite party also filed a petition for conversion of the eviction suit into a title suit which was rejected. It was also challenged in the civil revision which was dismissed saying that if there would be a question of title, the court may negative the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner. By the amendment as proposed the opposite party has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and has also claimed possession by virtue of agreement to sell the suit property by Pashupati Nath Sah. 5. It is evident from the written statement filed by the opposite party that such plea had already been taken by him specifically, in Para 25 of the written state ment. If such plea is available in the written statement, there is no need of further amendment. Moreover, in a suit for eviction it is primal duty of the plaintiff to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and then default or personal necessity. If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing the same then the suit can be decreed. No doubt the defendant is also required to establish his case. For the said purpose written statement is filed. In the instant case in the written statement specific stand of the defendant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, it is the burden of the opposite party to establish his case. In that view of the matter also the amendment as sought for is not required. 6. For the said purpose written statement is filed. In the instant case in the written statement specific stand of the defendant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. Therefore, it is the burden of the opposite party to establish his case. In that view of the matter also the amendment as sought for is not required. 6. Thus, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside.