Back
High Court Of Delhi
SETH KEWAL RAM MOOL CHAND ANAND - Appellant
Versus
S.N KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL RENT CONROLLER, DELHI - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 210 of 1976
Decided On : 05/04/1979
AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 15(1) - COURT'S DISCRETION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT - ADMISSIONS IN WRITTEN STATEMENT - SECTION 31 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - MALA FIDE INTENTION - JURISDICTION OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. The tenants filed a joint written statement denying the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between them and the landlord. The Additional Rent Controller passed an order directing the tenants to pay arrears of rent and continue to pay future rent. The tenants filed an application for amendment of the written statement to admit that they are the tenants and Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin is merely a Manager. The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application on the ground of mala fides and delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Additional Rent Controller erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement. The court observed that admissions in the written statement are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted and can be explained or shown to be erroneous or made under a mistake. The court also held that the Additional Rent Controller could not determine the mala fide nature of the application without going into the evidence on record. The court further held that the Additional Rent Controller's reasoning that the proposed plea was patently mala fide because Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin had not drawn any pay from 1967 and the tenants were not doing any business from 1967 was half-hearted and affected the merits of the eviction petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the Additional Rent Controller erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement? 2. Whether the admissions in the written statement are conclusive proof of the matters admitted? 3. Whether the Additional Rent Controller could determine the mala fide nature of the application without going into the evidence on record? 4. Whether the Additional Rent Controller's reasoning that the proposed plea was patently mala fide was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Additional Rent Controller erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement because: a. Admissions in the written statement are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted and can be explained or shown to be erroneous or made under a mistake. b. The Additional Rent Controller could not determine the mala fide nature of the application without going into the evidence on record. c. The Additional Rent Controller's reasoning that the proposed plea was patently mala fide because Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin had not drawn any pay from 1967 and the tenants were not doing any business from 1967 was half-hearted and affected the merits of the eviction petition. 2. The court held that admissions in the written statement are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted and can be explained or shown to be erroneous or made under a mistake.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the written statement and directed the parties to appear before the successor Additional Rent Controller on 10th May, 1979.
( 1 ) THIS is a. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the setting aside of the order dated 5th July, 1976 passed by Shri S. N. Kapoor, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting an application of the amendment of the written statement.
( 2 ) THE first floor of 2, Malka Ganj, Delhi along with the parking place for car on the ground floor was let out by Shri Kundan Lal Khanna (for short-landlord) to M/s. Mool Chand Chander Bhan and its partners (for shortcalled the tenants) in the year 1954-55 for the residence of Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin at arent of Rs. l60. 00 per month. On 18th December, 1970; the landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting or otherwise parting with possession infavour of M/s. Macka Hard Private Ltd. and Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin. In the-joint written statement, a plea was taken that the premises in question were initially let out to M/s. Mool Chand Chander Bhan, apartnership firm for use of the Manager, hat the Manager of M/s. Mool Chand Chander Bhan, namely. Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin has been residing in the premises, that in the year 1960 M/s. Mool Chand Chander Bhan asked the landlord to make Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin as a direct tenant and create direct tenancy in favour of Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin, that the landlord agreed and since then Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin is a direct tenant of the premises under the landlord that at the time when the tenancy was changed in favour of Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin, M/s. Mod Chand Chander Bhan on the request of the landlord, stood guarantee for payment of rents to the landlord and that inview of these facts,it is stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin is a direct tenant under the landlord and he is in possession of the premises in the own rights. The question arose for passing orders under sec. 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short called the Act) as one of the grounds for eviction was non-payment of arrears rent inspite of the expiry of the period of two months after service of notice. The Additional Rent Controller declined to pass orders in view of the pleadings of the parties about the denial of existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. An appeal by the landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal was also dismissed but a direction was issued to consider the passing of the orders under section 15 (1) after recording of the evidence. The evidence was recorded. The Additional Rent Controller by order dated 11th July, 1974 held that the tenancy in favour of M/s. Mool Chand Chander Bhan and its partners continued and they are the tenants and Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin is not the tenant in the premises in dispute. Accordingly, an order under sec. 15 (1) was passed directing the tenants to pay or deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 160. 00 per month from 1st December, 1967 upto the date within one month of the order and to continue to pay or deposit future rent month by month at the same rate by 15th day of each next following tenancy month. An appeal against the order dated 11th July, 1974 was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 2nd September, 1975. The second appeal against the said orders was dismissed by this Court in limine on 19th January, 1976.
( 3 ) ON the 6th April, 1976, the tenants nude an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of ths Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement in view of the findings of fact recorded by the Additional Rent Controller on 11th July, 1974. By the proposed amendment, the tenants wanted to delete pleas in the previous written statement and to take the plea that ths tenants admit that M/s. Mool Chand Chander Bhan and its partners continue to be the tenants in the premises and are still the tenants and Shri Kundan Lal Bhasin is merely a Manager. By ths impugned order Shri S. N. Kapoor, 1st Additional Re
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
