Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 22
High Court Of Delhi
JAGDISH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
PUSHPA KALIA - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 1616 of 1992
Decided On : 01/10/1994
SUBHASH OBEROI, W.N.GUJRAL
Amendments to pleadings should not be allowed if they amount to setting up a new case or withdrawing admissions already made, especially when it would prejudice the other party.
Headnote:
ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - SECTION 151 CPC - ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER - REJECTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought to amend his application before the Additional Rent Controller by adding new grounds for defense in an eviction petition filed by the respondent, the landlady. The proposed amendments included claims that the ground floor of the house had been vacant since 1989, that the petitioner had sufficient accommodation elsewhere, and that the respondent's husband had retired four years before the eviction petition was filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proposed amendments amounted to setting up a new case and withdrawing admissions already made by the petitioner. It found that the petitioner had not disputed any other ingredients and averments of the respondent and, therefore, he must be deemed to have admitted the same. The court also noted that allowing the amendments would seriously prejudice the case of the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the proposed amendments amounted to setting up a new case and withdrawing admissions already made by the petitioner. 2. Whether allowing the amendments would seriously prejudice the case of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles that parties should not be allowed to set up a new case by way of amendments, particularly when it would prejudice the defense already taken by the other party. It also considered the fact that the petitioner had not disputed any other ingredients and averments of the respondent and, therefore, he must be deemed to have admitted the same.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller rejecting the proposed amendments.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The order sought to be challenged by way of this petition is regarding refusal of the Additional Rent Controller to allow proposed amendments made in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was passed on 24th August, 1992.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner/tenant is that he filed an application before the Addl. Rent Controller by raising the additional grounds, which reads as follow:-
" (i) that the ground floor of the house in question comprising two rooms and a store, varandah, kitchen, bath and WBC and had been lying vacant since 1989 but the respondent No. 1 took no steps to occupy the said ground floor; (ii) that the petitioner was living with her family at D-869, Netaji Nagar and the accommodation comprised of 2 living rooms and the petitioner and the respondent did not require the premises in question; (iii) that the third ground sought to be added was about the husband of the respondent No. I, having retired on 30th September, 1986 and no petition for eviction was filed until the expiry of 4 years from the date of retirement of the respondent No. 1 s husband. The daughter of the respondent was stated to be of a marriageable age but even after her marriage she and her husband did not occupy the ground floor which had been lying vacant. "
( 3 ) THE case of the respondent/landlady on the other hand is that if the amendments sought are permitted then this would amount to setting up a new case contrary to the withdrawal of the admissions already made. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attendon to the reply filed to the application for leave to contest the eviction petition. In paragraph 3 of the said application it has specifically been averred that the husband of the landlady-respondent No. 1 retired on 30. 9. 1986 and the eviction petition was filed on 28. 5. 1990. The petitioner agreed to let out the tenancy premises to the respondent/tenant fora fixed period of eleven months w. e. f. 1. 2. 1986 and it was made clear that her husband was to retire on 30. 9. 1986 and thereafter the premises were required for her bonafide residence, to which the respondent agreed at the time of letting out the premises. It is further the case of the respondent/landlady is that after the retirement other husband he was to vacate the Government allotted flat at Netajee Nagar, so the respondent was repeatedly approached to vacate the tenancy premises and he went on giving false promises on one pretext or the other. Since the Estate Department forced the husband of the landlady to vacate the Government flat or to pay market rate of rent, which was beyond the capacity of the husband of the landlady, as he is getting very petty amount of pension, so the said Government flat was vacated and shifted his goods to the ground floor of the suit premises but the tenant and his wife started creating nuisance and it was injurious to the husband of the landlady who is a cronic heart patient. In view of the compelling circumstances after keeping most of the goods there the respondent with her family shifted and shared the Government allotted accommodation to the landlady s brother at Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi.
( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has controverted the stand taken by the respondent/landlady by saying that there was a gap of four years between the date of retirement of the husband of the respondent i. e. 30. 9. 1986 and the date of filing of the eviction petition which was moved on 28. 5. 1990. The application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant/petitioner on 25-6-1990 on this basis it was sought to argue by the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Addl. Rent Controller, the tenanted premises were lying vacant and, therefore, the landlady was not in need of the residential accommodation. The reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Neera Grover etc. v. Narinder Jaggi, 1982 0 RLR
