Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 891 (ALL)

New India Fertilizers v. A. D. J.

2006-03-30

RAKESH SHARMA

body2006
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Sharma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed an interim order dated 20.2.2006, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Barabanki while adjudicating the S.C.C. No. 1 of 2004, Smt. Kavlta Gupta v. New India Fertilizers. A suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute was Instituted by the landlord, Smt. Kavita Gupta before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Barabanki. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties and an amendment was sought by the landlord on 12.4.2005 to which objections were filed by the tenant-petitioners. The amendment was allowed after inviting objections from the tenant. A legal plea was taken by the landlord that the premises in question is not covered under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and since the monthly rent was Rs. 4,490 the provisions of Sections 24 and 30 of Rent Control and Eviction Act, are not applicable. It is relevant to mention here that an additional written statement was also filed by the petitioner-tenant. 4,490 the provisions of Sections 24 and 30 of Rent Control and Eviction Act, are not applicable. It is relevant to mention here that an additional written statement was also filed by the petitioner-tenant. The relevant paras 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the additional written statement (a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition) are quoted below: iSjk 1&;g fd etewu tks tfj;s rjehe mlh nkok esa c<+k;k x;k gS og ftl vksj ls rgjhj gS xyr gS o budkj gS A eqykfgtk gks mtjkr ethnA iSjk 2&;g fd izfroknh esllZ U;w bf.M;k QfVZykbtlZ ikVZujf'ki QeZ gS ftlds ikVZulZ ljtw izlkn xqIrk] vkse dqekj xqIrk iq= ljtw izlkn xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqIrk iq=h Jh deykdkUr xqIrk iRuh Jh v#.k dqekj xqIrk gS rFkk ikVZulZfli dk dkedkt lHkh ikVZulZ ds tfj;s gksrk gS bl dkj.k mijksDr vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk ikVZulZ dks okfnuh }kjk uksfVl fnukafdr 21-2-2004 ugha fHktokbZ xbZ bl dkj.k og voS/kkfud gS rFkk mDr vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk dks mDr okn esa i{kdkj Hkh ugha cuk;k x;k gS ftlds vHkko esa ,oa mudks uksfVl u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k mDr okn iks"k.kh; ugha gS rFkk blh fcuk ij [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA iSjk 3&;g fd nkok esa ukuTokbaMj vkQ uslsljh ikVhZt dks nks"k gS tks fd vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk ikVZulZ dks uksfVl u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k D;wjsfcy Hkh ugha gSA iSjk 4&;g fd izfroknh eselZ U;w bf.M;k QfVZykbtlZ ,oa ikVZulZ ljtw izlkn xqIrk] vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk us fdjk;k U;k;ky; Jheku flfoy tt egksn;] ^tw0fM0* dksVZ ua0 13] ckjkcadh ij tek fd;k ftldk eqdnek uEcj ,e,ulh 48 lu~ 2003] eselZ U;w bf.M;k QfVZykbtlZ vkfn cuke Jherh dfork xqIrk gS tks i=koyh ryc gksdj U;k;ky; Jheku th ij vkbZ gSA mDr ,e,ulh okn la[;k 48 lu~ 2003 esa fnukad 11-12-2005 dks Jherh dfork xqIrk mifLFkr Hkh gks pqdh Fkh rFkk mDr okn esa fdjk;k tek gksus dh tkudkjh ds i'pkr Hkh xyr okd;kr fn[kykdj okn esa uksfVl fnukafdr 21-2-2004 okfnuh }kjk fHktokbZ xbZ ijUrq ikVZulZ vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eatw xqIrk ds ikl dksbZ uksfVl ugha HkstokbZ xbZ rFkk xyr okd;kr fn[kykdj izLrqr okn nk;j fd;k x;k bl izdkj pwafd izfroknh ,oa vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqIrk izLrqr okn ds le; fMQkYVj gh ugh Fks vkSj u muds mij dksbZ fdjk;k cdk;k gh Fkk rFkk ikVZuj vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqirk uksfVl ds vHkko esa ,oa mDr okn esa i{kdkj u gksus ds dkj.k viuk i{k gh izLrqr ugha dj ldsA bl dkj.k izLrqr okn ftl izdkj nk;j fd;k x;k gS iks"k.kh; esUVsuscqy gh ugha gSA 3. These pleas were taken on record. When the proceedings were on, an application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C., was moved by the tenant-petitioner through which the following amendments were sought. vr% izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr okn esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/ku djus ds btktr nh tk;sA iSjk 1&;g fd c;ku rgjhj dh /kkjk 17 ds vUr esa tgka 'kCn Lora= gS rgjhj gS mlds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr bckjr c<+k;h tkus dh d`ik djsaA bl izdkj izfroknh /kkjk 114 VªkUlQj vkQ izkiVhZ ,DV] 1882 dk Hkh ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj nkok tSlk nk;j fd;k x;k gS dkfcy pyus ds ugha gSA iSjk 2&;g fd c;ku rgjhj dh /kkjk ¼v~½ fuEu rkSj ij rgjhj djus ds d`ik djsaA iSjk 17 v ;g fd nkok esa ellZ U;w bf.M;k QfVZykbtlZ ds vU; ikVZulZ vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqIrk dks i{kdkj eqdnek ugha cuk;k gS ftlds dkj.k esa ckn uqD'k vne t:jh Qjhd eqdnek dk gS vkSj bu yksxksa ds fcuk i{kdkj eqdnek cuk;s izLrqr okn dk dksbZ fu.kZ; bu yksxksa ij ck/;dkjh ugha gSA bl izdkj nkok iks"k.kh; ugha gS rFkk uksfVl fnukad 21-2-2004 pwafd ikVZulZ vkse dqekj xqIrk ,oa Jherh eUtw xqIrk dks ugha nh x;h gS bl dkj.k ;g uksfVl voS/kkfud gS rFkk mldh fcuk ij nkok tSlk mu ij fd;k x;k gS og dkfcy pyus ds ugha gS rFkk mDr nkok vcS/kkfud uksfVl fnukad 21-2-2004 ds vuqlkj gh [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA eSa ljtw izlkn xqIrk rLnhd djrk gwa fd izkFkZuk i= la'kks/ku dh /kkjk 1 d 2 esjh futh Kku ls lgh o lR; gS lR;kiu vkt fnukad 20-2-2006 ceqdku ckjkcadh fd;k x;kA izfroknh g0 viBuh; 4. After going through the above material, the Courts below had dismissed the amendment application, paper No. 360 on 20.2.2006, giving cause of action to the petitioners to file this writ petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions that the amendment in the pleadings can be made at any time in the interest of justice. The dominant purpose for allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. In one case the Supreme Court has granted Indulgence and ordered the lower court to allow the amendment even after 11 years. In the light of these judgments of Supreme Court of India, the District Judge ought to have allowed the amendment application. (1) Pankia and Anr. The dominant purpose for allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. In one case the Supreme Court has granted Indulgence and ordered the lower court to allow the amendment even after 11 years. In the light of these judgments of Supreme Court of India, the District Judge ought to have allowed the amendment application. (1) Pankia and Anr. v. Yellappa (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. 2005 (23) LCD 133 ; (2) Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Director General (Investigation and Registration) and Anr. (2001) 2 SCC 474 ; (3) Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another, AIR 2002 SC 3369 and (4) M/s. Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 . 6. 1 have gone through the material on record and perused, the order dated 20.2.2006. 7. The lower court has gone through the amendment application and especially paras 2 and 3 of the additional written statements and Paper No. C-50 of the record. The plea of non-joinder of necessary parties for impleadment of Om Prakash and Smt. Kavita Gupta has already been taken. For convenience, I have quoted the pleadings of the parties in the foregoing paras. The pleadings are explicit and clear. In the additional written statements, the tenant-petitioner has already conveyed to the Court what he meant to submit for proper adjudication of the case. As far as the pleadings of Section 114, Transfer of Property Act are concerned, the petitioner-tenant has already made this plea in the additional written statement and such a legal plea can also be taken by the petitioner at the time of arguments. The Judge, Small Causes Court has taken into account these legal pleas regarding applicability of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and Section 114 of Transfer of Properties Act. It has also come on record that through the additional written statements, the tenant-defendant has taken a plea that the plaintiff-landlord was not a defaulter. All these pleas already find place on record, which can be considered while adjudicating the case by the Judge, Small Cause Court. 8. The law is settled that such petty matters of eviction of tenant have to be dealt with and decided expeditiously by the Small Causes Courts. All these pleas already find place on record, which can be considered while adjudicating the case by the Judge, Small Cause Court. 8. The law is settled that such petty matters of eviction of tenant have to be dealt with and decided expeditiously by the Small Causes Courts. The purpose of creation of Small Causes Courts is to hold speedy trial and dispose of the matters, vide Judgment rendered by this Court on 25.7.2005 in Civil Revision No. 192 of 2003, Virendra Kumar Verma v. Km. Nirmala. This Court has dealt with such matters. 9. In fact no cause of action has really accrued to the petitioner for filing this writ petition and delay the disposal of the case which is pending before the lower court. It was a petty matter between the landlord and the tenant for eviction and recovery of rent. Since all the pleadings of the petitioner-tenant are available on record, it can be appreciated, considered by the lower courts. Even if the amendment application (which was unnecessary) has been rejected, no injustice shall be caused to the petitioner-tenant. All the pleas can be raised by the petitioner before the trial court at the time of hearing. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed. The courts below shall proceed with the case expeditiously.