Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Jaspal Kaur Cheema & Another - Appellants
Versus
M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8384-8386 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 22183-22185 of 2015)
Decided On : 03-07-2017
(1964) 4 SCR 19; (2003) 8 SCC 673; (2007) 6 SCC 401 – Relied upon
(b) Indian evidence Act, 1872 – Section 116 – Enumerates the principle of estoppel – Prohibits tenant from denying title of his landlord even if the title is defective. (Para 12, 13)
AIR 1915 PC 96; (2006) 3 SCC 91; 1999(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 277 : (1999) 7 SCC 474; (2014) 11 SCC 438 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115 – Amendment in written statement – Appellant inducting respondent as tenant – Appellant seeking eviction of respondent on ground of personal necessity – Respondent filing written stamen – Seeking amendment in written statement after closure of appellant’s evidence to introduce a plea that appellant is only a power of attorney holder and seeks eviction for his own personal necessity and not that of the actual landlord – Held respondent cannot be permitted to introduce the said plea by way of amendment, that too, at this belated stage. (Para 16)
(2001) 8 SCC 97; (2012) 1 SCC 656 – Distinguished [Para 15]
Facts of the case:
The appellants herein filed eviction petition against the respondents on the ground of personal necessity. The respondents filed the written statement opposing the eviction petition. After conclusion of the evidence of the appellants, the respondents led their evidence. At this stage, respondents moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement for adding the plea that the appellants are not the owners of the premises and that the sole proprietor of the premises was Smt. Raj Nanda and that the eviction is not sought for the bona fide necessity of Smt. Raj Nanda. The appellants are mere attorneys and that they have projected their own necessity to get the premises vacated from the respondents.
The Rent Controller dismissed the application.
The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and allowed the amendment application.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent cannot be permitted to introduce the said plea by way of amendment in written statement, that too, at this belated stage.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein filed eviction petition against the respondents for their eviction from an area of 200 sq. ft. on the ground floor of Industrial Shed No. 93, Industrial Area, Ram Darbar, Phase-II, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the premises') under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short `the Act'), on the ground of personal necessity. The respondents filed the written statement opposing the eviction petition. After conclusion of the evidence of the appellants, the respondents led their evidence. At this stage, respondents moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement for adding the plea that the appellants are not the owners of the premises and that the sole proprietor of the premises was Smt. Raj Nanda and that the eviction is not sought for the bona fide necessity of Smt. Raj Nanda. The appellants are mere attorneys and that they have projected their own necessity to get the premises vacated from the respondents.
3. The Rent Controller dismissed the application vide order dated 25.07.2013. The respondents challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3684/2014, 6638 & 7299/2013 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide common order dated 21.02.2015 set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and allowed the amendment application. The appellants have challenged the legality and correctness of the said order of the High Court in these appeals.
4. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, submits that the appellants are the owners of the premises. They had let out the said premises to the respondents under a deed of lease dated 16.05.2006. The respondents in their written statement have not traversed the petition averment that the appellants are the owners of the premises. After cross-examination of the tenant (RW-1), the respondents filed the application for amendment of the written statement denying the ownership of the appellants in relation to the premises. In the cross-examination of the tenants, they have admitted the ownership of the appellants. They have also admitted the execution of the deed of lease dated 16.05.2006. Therefore, the plea of the appellants that they are the owners of the property must be taken to be admitted. The respondents are estopped from disputing the title of the appellants having regard to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short `the Evidence Act'). It was argued that the application for amendment of the written statement was rightly dismissed by the Rent Controller and the High Court was not justified in permitting the respondents to amend the written statement.
5. Ms. Nirmata Shergill, learned advocate, appearing for the respondents, submits that the appellants are not the owners of the premises. The sole proprietor of the premises is Smt. Raj Nanda and that the appellants are the attorney holders of Smt. Raj Nanda. The appellants cannot seek eviction of the respondents on the ground of their personal necessity. Therefore, the High Court was justified in allowing the application of the respondents for amendment of their written statement.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondents were put in possession of the premises by the appellants under the lease deed at Annexure P-1 dated 16.05.2006. The appellants in paragraph (1) of the eviction petition averred that they are the owners and landlords of the premises and that the premises was let out to the respondents through a lease deed dated 16.05.2006. In their written statement, the respondents have not raised a specific plea denying or disputing the ownership of the appellants. However, there is a general denial of the averments made in paragraph (1) of the eviction petition.
8. In terms of Order 8 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
