Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Geeta Rai Devi - Appellant
Versus
Shushila Devi & Anr. - Respondents
C.M. (M) No. 332 of 2021
Decided On : 15-04-2021
Shailesh Madiyal, Advocate, Rashmi Verma, Advocate
A party cannot be allowed to withdraw a concession made in the written statement in a tenancy dispute, especially when it is crucial to the jurisdiction of the Court under relevant rent control laws.
Headnote:
Amendment - Tenancy Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing her application seeking amendment to her written statement in a tenancy dispute case filed by the respondent seeking possession, arrears of rent, and permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plea regarding construction and possession was crucial in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 3(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner's amendment was not allowed as it sought to withdraw a concession made in the written statement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's attempt to amend her written statement to contest the construction and possession timeline, and the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 3(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to withdraw the concession made in the written statement, and the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment application was justified.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Fund within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J.
This petition has been heard through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 14399/2021 & 14400/2021 (Exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions
CM(M) 332/2021 & CM APPL. 14398/2021
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil JudgeSouth East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Suit, being CS SCJ 724/2018, dismissing the application of the petitioner herein filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment to her written statement.
2. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein seeking possession, arrears of rent and electricity charges/damages, and permanent injunction, claiming therein that the petitioner is a tenant with respect to one room (private room no.1), one kitchen and one toilet on the ground floor of property no.A-301, Aali Vihar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110024 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,700/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. The said tenancy, as per the respondent was created after completion of the construction of the building on the said plot in the year 2012. The respondent, with respect to the construction of the building, has averred as under in the Plaint:
"2. That the Plaintiff purchased the aforesaid property bearing No. A-301, Aali Vihar, from the previous owner, Shri Sunil Kumar, by way of Agreement to Sell and Purchase, General Power of Attorney, Possession Letter and Receipt all dated 06.11.2007. After purchasing the aforesaid property, which was in a semi constructed state uptill the Ground Floor; towards the end of the year 2011, the Plaintiff and her Husband, namely, Shri Rajgir Pandit got demolished the entire old construction and raised a new construction uptill 3 Floor i.e. the Ground Floor, First Floor and the second Floor. The construction of the Property was completed in April 2012."
3. The petitioner, in the written statement filed, did not specifically deny the averment of the respondent with respect to the construction of the building in the year 2012, and stated as under:
"2. That the contents of para no. 2 of the suit are wrong, incorrect and hence denied except to the extents which are matter of record. It is a settled position of law that an unregistered agreement to sell and purchase and power of attorney does not confer any title in immovable property. It is further submitted that any illegal construction is subject to action by the concerned municipal authorities."
4. The petitioner also did not specifically deny the allegation of the respondent with respect to the tenancy having been created in 2012.
5. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code.
6. On the other hand, the petitioner herein filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement inter alia now wanting to contend that the property in question was constructed prior to 2012 as also that the petitioner has been in possession of the premises since the year 2008.
7. The said application, however, has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court observing as under:
"In the present case, plaintiff has specifically stated that she got the property constructed afresh in April 2012 and thereafter, gave the said property on rent to defendant no. 1. In response to the said contention, the defendants have categorically stated in para 7 of their preliminary submissions of their written statements that they are residing in the suit premises since last 7 years. Again, in para 2 and 3 of their written statement under the heading "parawise reply on merits", the defendants are completely silent on the time of entry in to the property in question. They have made a vague denial of the averments of the para 2 and 3 of the plaint. It may be noted herein that in para 2 and 3 of the plaint there is specific averment of the plaintiff that the said property was constructed in April 2012 and thereafter giving on rent in May 2012. A bare denial of the same shall
