( 1 ) THE appellants are plaintiffs in Suit No. 2000 of 1989. They have filed this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent (Lahore) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The appeal has been preferred against an order in IA No. 2840/93 allowing a second amendment of the written statement filed by the respondents.

( 2 ). The respondents, eight in number, were in possession of a shop in South Extension Part I, New Delhi under a lease dated 2. 12. 1986. The rent was Rs. 6000. 00 per month. After the Delhi Rent Control Act was amended in December,1988 exempting buildings with rent above Rs. 3500. 00 p. m. from the purview of the Rent Control Act, the premises in question came out of the purview of that Act. Then the appellants issued notice on 29. 5. 89 under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, and filed the present suit for possession in 1989. In the original written statement, the respondents accepted that eight of them were in possession under a single lease dated 2. 12. 1986 but claimed that the lease was a perpetual lease. They also stated that defendants 2 and 6 relinquished their rights in the tenancy in favour of the other defendants. In December,1990, they amended the written statement raising a plea under Section 53a, Transfer of Property Act. Now they have filed present IA 2840/93 for further amendment saying that, to start with, there were 8 tenancies each and the rent that was payable was split up into (Rs. 6000/8) = Rs. 750. 00 p. m. for each defendant and hence the Rent Control Act continued to be applicable even after amendment of the Act in December,1988. This IA 2840/93 was allowed by the learned Single Judge, subject to payment of Rs. 1500. 00 as costs and questioning the same, plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

( 3 ). The defendants-respondents raised two preliminary objections. The first one was that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, that Clause 10 of Letters Patent (Lahore) could not enlarge the right of appeal as held by a Full Bench of this Court in University of Delhi vs. Hafiz Mohd. Said (AIR 1972 Delhi 102 (FB) and that in any event, the order was not a judgment . The second objection was that the costs awarded by the learned Single Judge for allowing the amendment were sent to and received by the appellants lawyer s clerk and hence the appeal could not be maintained. Finally the contention on merits was that the amendment of written statement was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge.

( 4 ). The following points, therefore, arise for consideration:

(1)WHAT are the circumstances in which an order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code could be treated as a judgment for purposes of clause 10 of Letters Patent (Lahore) or Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act so as to enable Letters Patent to be filed? (2)Whether the costs of Rs. 1500. 00 awarded by the learned Judge were received by the appellant s lawyer s clerk under due authority of the appellants and the appellants were estopped from filing this appeal? (3)Whether, on merits, the amendment was one which ought to have been allowed?point 1

( 5 ). The shop in question is in South Extension Part I, New Delhi. The building was, according to the plaint, leased to eight persons under a single tenancy on 2. 12. 1986 at Rs. 6000. 00 p. m. In December,1988, the Delhi Rent Control Act was amended exempting buildings with rents above Rs. 3500. 00 p. m. from the purview of the Act. The plaintiffs-appellants gave notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 29. 5. 1989 and filed the suit in 1989 for eviction. The Written statement was filed for the lessees accepting the plaintiff s case of single tenancy but raising a plea of perpetual tenancy and other pleas. Later, written statement was amended in December,1990, raising a plea under Section 53 A of the Transer of Property Act. Now IA 2840/93 raising a new plea of separate tenancies in fa