Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Ajay Dhingra & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Raj Kumar Rajora & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 192 of 2017 & CM Nos. 6271-6273 of 2017
Decided On : 17-02-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rishi Manchanda
For the Respondents: Mr. R.S.D. Dixit
Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting amendments and should not go into the merits of the matter at the stage of considering an amendment application.
Headnote:
Amendment - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 2(l), Explanation (ii) to Section 2(L) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming joint ownership of a property and seeking to restrain the petitioners from creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the property. The respondents later sought to add the relief of possession and mesne profits in the plaint through an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the suit remained based on title, and the proposed amendments were essentially in the relief clause, not changing the fundamental nature of the suit. The court also held that the merits of the pleas sought to be raised by the amendment should not be adjudicated upon at the time of consideration of an application for amendment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the change in the nature of the suit due to the proposed amendments and the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the settled legal position that courts should be liberal while granting amendments and should not go into the merits of the matter at the stage of considering an amendment application.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to file the written statement to the amended plaint within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 20.09.2016 by which an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction. As per the plaint, the respondents claim to be the joint owners of the property in Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi having purchased the same from the previous owner vide sale deed dated 28.10.2015 and 05.11.2015. It is averred that at the time of purchase of the property only constructive/symbolic possession of the property was given to the respondents. It is further contended that the suit property was let out to the father of the petitioners for residential purposes. Hence, a decree of permanent injunction was sought against the petitioners from creating any third party interest or parting with possession of the suit property.
3. Now the respondents have moved the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to add the relief of possession and mesne profits in the plaint.
4. By the impugned order, the trial court relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Prakas vs. Raj Rani, AIR 1981 SC 485 where it was held that liberal principles guide the exercise of discretion in allowing the amendment and that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided, concluded that the fundamental nature of the suit does not change and allowed the application for the amendment.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued essentially two grounds. He submits that the proposed amendment has changed the nature of the suit. He secondly submits that the plaint as now framed is liable to be rejected at the threshold as the respondents/landlords admit that the rent of the premises is Rs.98 per month and the petitioners are using the premises for commercial purpose. He submits that in view of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the present plaint is liable to be rejected after the amendment and hence, he submits that the amendments ought not to be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated that the present amendments have been made only for the purpose to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He further submits that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act are not applicable in the present case as the original tenant was Sh.Jagdish Chander, the father of the petitioners. His tenancy, he submits, was terminated on 02.08.2005. The original tenant Sh. Jagdish Cahander has expired and the property is now being illegally occupied by the petitioners. He relies upon Section 2(l) and explanation (ii) to Section 2(L) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which provides that if a person acquires by succession on the death of the tenant the right to continue in possession after the termination of tenancy and who was not financially dependent on the deceased tenant, the right of the successor to continue in possession is only limited for a period of one year. Hence, he submits that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act would not be applicable.
8. A perusal of the plaint would show that the suit is based on title. The respondents have claimed to be the owners of the property and have sought to restrain the petitioners who are described as the sons of the erstwhile tenant from selling, alienating or transferring the suit property or parting with possession of the same. All the necessary averments regarding termination of the tenancy of Sh. Jagdish Chander, and the fact that the petitioners, as per the respondents, have only year to reside in the property under the provisions of Section 2(l) of the DRC Act have also been averred in the plaint. The amendments which are sought are essentially in the relief clause, namely, addition of the prayer of eviction and mesne profits/damages. Hence, in the light of the a
