( 1 ) THE single question raised in this petition by the tenant Raj Narain Aggarwal is whether the amendment of the written statement was wrongly refused by the Additional Rent Controller.

( 2 ) THESE are the facts. The respondent landlord, Baij Nath Khanna, brought a petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence for himself and for members of the family dependent on him under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( the Act ). The tenant is contesting the petition on several grounds. One of the grounds of defence in the written statement is that the landlord is not the owner of premises.

( 3 ) AFTER the case had been set down for the evidence of the landlord, an application was made by the tenant on 31-3-1982 under Order VI Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code praying that he may be allowed to amend the written statement so as to incorporate the plea that the landlord Baij Nath Khanna is "at the most a benamidar and not the real owner or co-owner" of the property in question. In the amendment application it was said that in respect of the sale deed date 20-11-1947 of the property in dispute the entire sale consideration was paid by the landlord s brother Amir Chand Khanna, and not by Baij Nath Khanna. Baij Nath Khanna s name was merely added out of affection by Amir Chand Khanna and that Amir Chand Khanna was the sole and the exclusive owner of the property in suit. The tenant said that in the year 1970 when Amir Chand Khanna directed him to pay rent to Baij Nath Khanna as "his representative, agent or nominee" that he started paying rent to him. The sub- stance of the amendment is that the tenant wants to set up the plea that the landlord Baij Nath Khanna is merely a benarnidar and not the real owner or co-owner of the property.

( 4 ) THE amendment was opposed by the landlord. The learned Additional Controller rejected the application. He took the view that ownership of landlord has already been challenged by the tenant because there is a specific plea of the tenant disputing the ownership of the landlord. On this, he said, the tenant can lead evidence about the ownership to the extent the law permits him but the tenant cannot take the plea that the landlord is a benarnidar. Therefore the amendment was refused. From the order of the Additional Controller dated 15-7-82 the tenant has filed this petition.

( 5 ) THE question is whether the tenant has locus standi to question the ownership of the landlord on the ground that he is a mere benarnidar and not the real owner of the property, the real owner being Amir Cha:d Khanna. In my opinion it is not open to the tenant to take the plea that his landlord is a benarnidar and not the real owner, though the sale deed dated 20-11-1947 evidences that Amir Chand Khanna and Baij Nath Khanna are the co-owners of the property. The only ground on which it is sought to be asserted that Baij Nath is a mere benarnidar of Amir Chand, is that the entire sale consideration proceeded from Amir Chand Khanna and Baij Nath Khanna did not contribute, "even a single pie" towards the sale consideration.

( 6 ) THE short answer to the plea sought to be raised by the tenant by way of amendment is that it is only the real owner Amir Chand who can raise the question of the transaction being benami. Amir Chand is dead. His heirs can raise the objection. But not the tenant.

( 7 ) IT appears to me that this proposition is well settled. In Sardarni Kirpul Kmir v. Bhagwant Rai, 1962 PLR 717 Grover J. took the view that where a gift of the demised premises is made by the landlord to his wife, the tenant cannot challenge the validity of the same on the ground that the landlord was not empowered to make the gift. It was argued in that case that the property belonged to the joint Hindu family and Kuldip Singh, the husband, could not have made a valid gift in the name of his wife, Kirpal Kaur, because he could