Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1911 (ALL)

Piyush Rastogi v. Ravindra Kohli

2015-07-15

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the orders dated 8.4.2015 and 6.5.2015 on the amendment applications no. 36 ka and 77 ga filed under Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C. 3. The brief facts relevant to decide the present writ petition are that an amendment application was filed by the respondent landlord on 21.3.2013 to make amendment in the release application in view of the assertions made in paragraph-10 of the written statement, with regard to new constructions raised by the landlord on the first floor of the premises in question. The amendment application was allowed on 23.7.2013 by a short order on the ground that the amendments are formal in nature. Aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition no.53400 of 2013 wherein order dated 23.7.2013 was quashed on the ground that no reason has been assigned by the court below for allowing the amendment. It was not recorded as to how the amendments are necessary. The matter was remanded back to the court below to decide afresh . 4. During pendency of the earlier amendment application, another amendment application 36 ka was filed with the pleadings that on account of typographical error in the release application rent of the premises in question has been wrongly mentioned as Rs. 700/- per month whereas correct amount is Rs. 890/- per month. 5. The amendment application 77 Ga was allowed by order dated 8.4.2015. The reason recorded by the court below is that the amendment being sought by the respondent landlords are necessary to decide the controversy as they relate to the alleged new constructions raised by the landlord before filing of the release application. 6. Challenging the order dated 8.4.2015 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has committed illegality in allowing the amendment application in as much as though it has been recorded that the proceedings are at the stage of arguments and evidence has been led, however, it has proceeded to allow the amendment at such a belated stage. Moreover, the amendment will change the nature of the controversy between the parties. Moreover, the amendment will change the nature of the controversy between the parties. Further the amendments being sought by the respondent were well within his knowledge and statements to this effect ought to have been made in the release application, itself.It is well settled that the amendment can not be made to fill the lacuna in the pleadings. 7. Dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Suffice it to say that the amendment has been sought in view of the assertions of the petitioner tenant in paragraph-10 of the written statement regarding availability of alternative accommodation to the landlord. Merely because replication has been filed it cannot be said that the amendments were not relevant. 8. The reason given by the court below in allowing the amendment application are perfectly justified. It is well settled that the amendments which are relevant to decide the controversy should be taken liberally and allowed by the court in order to give opportunity to the parties to contest their case.In the rent control proceedings, the matter is decided on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties. In case pleadings are incomplete, one party may be at loss. 9. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while allowing the amendment application 77 Ga, the court below ought to have granted opportunity to the petitioner to file additional written statement/additional written statement. 10. The court proposes to give fifteen days time to the petitioner to file additional evidence.To this proposal, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has no objection. 11. So far as the order dated 6.5.2015 is concerned whereby amendment in paragraph-1 of the release application has been sought with regard to the amount of rent of the premises in question. In this regard reference may be made to the plaint in the proceeding under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act in SCC suit no.10 of 2012. In paragraph-1 of the plaint, the respondent landlord has stated that the rent admissible with local taxes of the premises in question is Rs. 890/- per month and the petitioner tenant is making payment of Rs. 890/- per month towards rent alongwith local taxes. The submission of the petitioner is that the amendments are not bonafide in as much as the petitioner had admitted the rate of rent as Rs. 890/- per month and the petitioner tenant is making payment of Rs. 890/- per month towards rent alongwith local taxes. The submission of the petitioner is that the amendments are not bonafide in as much as the petitioner had admitted the rate of rent as Rs. 700/- rather it is effort to fill lacuna in SCC no.10 of 2012 and would prejudice the petitioner in those proceedings. 12. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and assertions in paragraph- 1 of the release application as also the plaint in SCC Suit no.10 of 2012, this court finds that there is no inconsistency in the statements of the landlord in two proceedings. Admittedly the petitioner is liable to pay taxes of the premises in question alongwith the rent. Even assuming that there is some mistake in computation of taxes of the premises in question by the petitioner but that would not make any difference so far as the release proceedings are concerned.The court below has rightly recorded that the amendment sought would not change the nature of the release application. Simultaneously it has been observed by the court below that the petitioner may file additional written statement in terms of the amendment allowed. 13. In view of the above discussion, this, court is not inclined to interfere in the order impugned. The writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed.