2009 Supreme(SC) 1202

2009(5) Supreme 430
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and H.L.Dattu, JJ.
Olympic Industries — Appellant
versus
Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4148-4149 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP) Nos.23661-23662 of 2007)
Decided on : 07-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement.
2. While allowing additional counter statement or refusing to accept the same, the court should only see that if such additional counter statement is not accepted, the real controversy between the parties could not be decided.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act – Section 25 – Appeals against order of High Court rejecting application for permission to file additional counter statement – High Court rejected application on ground that appellant had filed a belated application for acceptance of an additional counter statement when examination of P.W.1 was already over – Mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement – At the same time, delay is no ground for dismissal of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure where no prejudice was caused to party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement which could easily be compensated by cost – That apart, the delay in filing the additional counter statement had been properly explained by the appellant – The averments made in the additional counter statement could not be raised by the appellant earlier since appellant was under the impression that the lease agreement was destroyed in a fire accident and that he incidentally discovered lease files in an old trunk only in October 1996 while he was cleaning the house for Pooja celebration – This explanation, could not be rejected – Hence said ground on which the additional counter statement sought to be rejected by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional power, held unsustainable. (Para 7)

        Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act – Section 25 – Appeals against order of High Court rejecting application for permission to file additional counter statement – High Court rejected application on ground that a new plea was raised in the same in respect of which there was no slightest basis in the original counter statement filed by appellant – Held High Court erred in interfering with concurrent orders of Rent Control Tribunal, as no prejudice was caused to the respondents and even if some prejudice was caused that could be compensated by cost – Appellant had already stated in his application for acceptance of additional counter statement the reasons for taking such new plea, viz., he could trace out the lease deed pertaining to the lease only when he was cleaning the boxes – The respondents had also not disputed as to existence of lease deed only they were disputing filing of additional counter statement at such a belated stage – This being the position, held that even if examination of PW – 1 or his cross – examination was over, then also, it was open to court to accept additional counter statement filed by appellant by awarding some cost against the appellant – High Court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting application for permission to file additional counter statement as no prejudice could be caused to respondent which would otherwise be compensated in terms of cost. (Para 7)

        Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act – Section 25 –Revisional Jurisdiction – It is well settled that the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act, could interfere with the concurrent orders of the tribunals below only if it finds that the findings of the tribunals below were either perverse or arbitrary, irregular or improper, but if the High Court finds that the findings of the tribunals below are based on correct application of the principles and in any way cannot be said to have acted illegally and with material irregularity, in that case it cannot be said that the High Court was entitled to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the tribunals below in accepting the application for additional counter statement filed by the appellants – Held High Court was not justified to interfere with the concurrent orders of the tribunals below, as tribunals below, on consideration of counter statement as well as additional counter statement and application for fixation of rent and other materials on record, accepted the counter statement in its discretion and, therefore, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the same in the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness in such findings of tribunals below. (Para 8)

        (2007) 5 SCC 602 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeals have been filed against order of High Court rejecting application for permission to file additional counter statement. High Court rejected application on ground that appellant had filed a belated application for acceptance of an additional counter statement when examination of P.W.1 was already over.

       Findings of the Court :

        High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of Act, could interfere with the concurrent orders of the tribunals below only if it finds that the findings of the tribunals below were either perverse or arbitrary, irregular or improper, but if the High Court finds that the findings of the tribunals below are based on correct application of the principles and in any way cannot be said to have acted illegally and with material irregularity, in that case it cannot be said that the High Court was entitled to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the tribunals below in accepting the application for additional counter statement filed by the appellants. Held High Court was not justified to interfere with the concurrent orders of the tribunals below, as tribunals below, on consideration of counter statement as well as additional counter statement and application for fixation of rent and other materials on record, accepted the counter statement in its discretion and, therefore, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the same in the absence of any perversity or arbitrariness in such findings of tribunals below.

       Result : Appeals allowed.