Back
High Court Of Delhi
BHUPINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JANAK RANI - Respondent
Decided On : 12/11/1996
RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 38 - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION - COURT'S DISCRETION - RELEVANT FACTORS:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to amend written statement in rent control proceedings to withdraw admission of ownership and landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the amendment application.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the amendment, holding that the courts below erred in disallowing the amendment solely on the ground that the petitioner could withdraw or explain the admissions. The court noted that the law permits withdrawal or explanation of admissions and that procedural law is intended to facilitate, not obstruct, substantive justice.
Issues: Whether the courts below erred in disallowing the amendment of the written statement to withdraw the admission of ownership and landlord-tenant relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents holding that courts are more liberal in allowing amendments to written statements than to plaints, and that the distinction between the two must be made. The court also noted that in other proceedings between the same parties, similar amendments had been allowed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller, and permitted the amendment of the written statement. The court directed the parties to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on a specified date.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 227 praying for setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in appeal under Section 38 of the Rent Control Act on 18. 5. 1996. Vide that order, the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner disallowing his prayer for amendment of the written statement by withdrawing the admission already made on record. In this case, one Raj Nath Jasrai had let out the premises in his capacity as the owner thereof to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said property was sold by the said Raj Nath Jasrai in favour of the petitioner on 19. 12. 1991. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in para 3 (b) of reply on merits in his written statement filed before the Additional Rent Controller. Later on when the matter was ripe for evidence, the petitioner moved the Additional Rent Controller for leave to amend the written statement whereby the said admission was sought to be withdrawn and in its place, the petitioner wanted to state in reply to para No. 3 (b) and add a Preliminary Objection No. 9 as under:
"para No. 3 (b) is wrong and is denied. The respondent is not tenant under the petitioner. The petitioner is not the landlord, and the petitioner is not the owner of the property in suit vide alleged Sale Deed dated 14. 12. 91. The respondent never paid rent to the petitioner. The respondent never tendered the rent to the petitioner despite service of legal notice of demand dated 14. 11. 95 demanding arrears of rent through her Counsel Mrs. Inderjit Saroop, Advocate. The petitioner had illegally and fraudulently and in conspiracy with her son Shri Vijay Kapoor got the alleged sale deed executed and registered on 14. 12. 91 when the original owner Shri Rajnathjas Rai died on 1st July, 1990 and power of attorney in favour of Shri Vijay Kapoor became inoperative and null and void having no right to execute Sale Deed on behalf of dead person but the petitioner has suppressed all these facts and committed perjury by using forged documents in the judicial proceeding. There is no attomment letter in respect of the suit property. "
PRELIMINARY Objection No. 9
"there is no cause of action in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule II, Civil Procedure Code as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner had fraudulently and by suppression of real facts from this Hon ble Court alleged in para No. 14 of the petition that she purchased the property from Shri Raj Nath Jasrai and the respondent became tenant under the petitioner by operation of law whereas the petitioner had conspired with her son Shri Vijay Kapor (General Power of Attorney of Shri Rajnath Jasrai) and got the alleged Sale Deed executed in his name in December, 1991 when the owner Shri Rajnath Jasrai died on 1st July, 1990 even before the execution of alleged Sale Deed. "
( 2 ) MR. Saluja stated that this admission was through an oversight and on account of lack of petitioner s knowledge about the details of the title of the respondent. It is also pointed out that there is another litigation pending between the parties and in that ease, the Additional Rent Controller had allowed such amendment allowing the applicant to withdraw the admission in the written statement. The main ground of attack on the impugned order by Mr. Saluja is that the person who executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent on behalf of the previous owner, had done so in his capacity as the Constituted Attorney of the owner and the said owner and the donor of the Power of Attorney had died on 1. 7. 1990 whereas the sale deed was executed on 19. 12. 1991 and, therefore, the sale deed is without any authority and is null and void. In another petition between the parties, one Additional Rent Controller had allowed the amendment, but in the present case when similar application was moved before the Additional Rent Cont
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
