An admission made by a party in its original written statement cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment if it would cause prejudice to the opposite party and displace the opposite party's case.

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.

This revisional application is moved by the defendant, Indian Oil Corporation in short 'IOC' against the impugned Order No.60 dated 9th July, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Kolkata on an application for amendment of their written statement filed in Ejectment Suit No.43 of 2005 instituted by Sri Ram Mirchandani being the absolute owner in respect of flat No.2C, Everest Building, 46C, Chowringhee Road now known as Jaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700 071. By the order impugned the learned Court below rejected the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant on 23rd April, 2014.

2. The opposite party in this revisional application being the plaintiff instituted an eviction suit No.43 of 2005 for eviction of the defendant (I.O.C.) on the ground that the defendant committed default for payment of monthly rent in respect of aforesaid tenancy from the month of April, 2004, for causing nuisance in suit premises, subletting a part of portion of the tenanted premises to one Petroleum Conservation Research Association (in short 'PCRA') in violation of provisions under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Tenancy of the defendant/opposite party is also determined by notice to quit.

3. The defendant, I.O.C., entered appearance through their learned Advocate and filed their written statement and the ground for eviction taken in sub-para (c) of paragraph 3 was dealt with by them with a denial to the effect that there is no subletting of the premises or any portion thereof, nor the defendant violated any provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It was also specifically denied that the premises was never sublet to PCRA as alleged. It was stated that PCRA never paid any rent to the defendant and as such, cannot be said to be a sub-tenant of the defendant. It was also stated that the plaintiff deliberately tried to make out a false and misleading case alleging wrongful subletting. It was further stated that the defendant is a member of PCRA which is a body corporate constituted by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Government of India and as such, from the very beginning of the tenancy, the defendant used the said premises also to carry out PCRA's work since both of them are under the same Ministry. In any event, the landlady of the said premises has been aware of the fact at all materials times and has acquiesced of such use of the premises, etc. After completion of all required formalities and framing of issues, trial of the eviction suit was started.

4. At this stage, the defendant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amending the written statement. The defendant wanted to add that the defendant had also been occupying the unit No.2A, 2B, 2D and 2E apart from unit No.2C of Everest House. Since the defendant is the Board member of PCRA, an organisation under Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the defendant had been doing some activities of PCRA from unit No.2A and 2B of Everest House during relevant point of time. It was also within the knowledge of the Administrator of Everest House appointed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta that activities of PCRA had been carried out from unit No.2A and 2B of Everest House. The defendant also stated that the defendant has been occupying unit No.2C and at the relevant point of time, Assam Oil division of the defendant was functioning from the unit No.2C of Everest House. The defendant also wanted to strike off the following statements from their written statement:-

"The said PCRA has never paid any rent to the defendant and cannot be said to be a sub-tenant of the defendant. It so happens that the defendant is a member of PCRA which is a body constituted by Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Government of India, as such, from the beginning of the tenancy the defendant used the said premises also to carry out PCRA wo