ORDER

Heard Mr. Chandrakant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and their eviction has been sought by the respondents-plaintiffs by filing the Title Suit No. 6 of 1996 on the ground of personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge J.D. (Munsiff), Danapur by which the amendment to the written statement sought by the petitioners – tenant at the fag end of the suit has been dismissed holding that the proposed amendment is not related with the issue involved in the case because the present case has been filed for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises and the suit totally depends upon the relationship between landlord and tenant. Admittedly evidence of both the parties in the suit has come to end and the suit is fixed for argument. At the stage of argument of the suit, the petitioners filed a petition for amendment of the written statement to add certain portion of the judgment passed by the learned District Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 16/2012 in order to establish the title of the defendants-petitioners upon the suit premises.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents-plaintiffs filed Title Eviction Suit No. 6 of 1996 seeking eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. During pendency of the suit the petitioners filed a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 29/2000 against the plaintiffs / respondents of the present case for declaration of title over Schedule-I property, which is a building and for recovery of possession over Schedule II property, which is part of Schedule I property. The suit filed by the petitioners – tenants was dismissed on contest by the judgment of learned Sub Judge II, Danapur on 21.02.2012. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred Title Appeal No. 16 / 2012 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners also got dismissed on contest. According to the petitioners Second Appeal against such judgment is pending before the this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have got title over the suit / tenant premises and if amendment is not allowed, they will be prevented from bringing subsequent events regarding their title inasmuch as while deciding the Issue No. VII the Distt. Appellate Court (i.e. A.D.J. VIIth, Danapur) in Appeal No. 16 / 2012 has arrived at the finding that the “parties were in joint possession over the suit property and it cannot be said that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the suit property and occupation of the defendant in Schedule- II property is not as a tenant”. To substantiate his arguments learned counsel submits that in the case of Lal Chandra Agrawal vs. Sri Rajkishore & Anr. Reported in 2012 (2) PLJR 661 this Court has held that subsequent event should be allowed by way of amendment. He also relies upon another judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 1647 Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. for the proposition that while considering the application for amendment the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case under amendment.

6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondents / landlords submits that amendment sought by the petitioners is malafide. The proposed amendment is not related with the issue involved in the case and by seeking amendment petitioners-tenants are trying to delay the disposal of the eviction suit, which is pending since 1996. He further submits that the petitioners have picked -up one or two lines from the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court in order to show that the petitioners have title upon the tenanted premises. Title cannot be decided in a suit for eviction particularly when the petitioners have independently filed a suit seeking declaration of their title upon the suit premises which has been dismissed on contest.

7. Th