The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of admissions in the written statement and the adherence to procedural requirements for amendment applications.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. Present revision petition lays a challenge to an order dated 18.01.2023 whereby the Trial Court has dismissed two review applications filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 114 CPC for review of the order dated 29.08.2022. Petitioner before this Court is the Defendant before the Trial Court and Respondent is the Plaintiff and parties hereinafter are referred to by their litigating status before the Trial Court.

2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that by an order dated 29.08.2022, the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for possession of the suit property bearing No.52, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001, measuring built up area of 384 sq. mtrs., exercising power under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. By the same order, the application filed by the Plaintiff for striking off the defence of the Defendant under Order XV-A CPC has been allowed and the application filed by the Defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. Defendant filed two Review Petitions under Section 114 CPC for review of the order dated 29.08.2022. In one petition, challenge was laid to the order dated 29.08.2022 to the extent the defence of the Defendant was struck off and, in the other, Defendant challenged the dismissal of the amendment application. It is the order dated 18.01.2023 whereby the two Review Petitions were dismissed, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. No challenge till date has been made by the Defendant to the decree of possession passed against it. Therefore, this Court is only required to decide the two issues that emanate from the dismissal of the order dated 18.01.2023.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition are that Defendant company had taken the suit property, except the servant quarters, on lease vide Registered Lease Agreement dated 12.12.2016 for a period of three years from 12.12.2016 to 11.12.2019, at a monthly rent of Rs.2,00,000/- per month, with security deposit of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. As per the case of the Plaintiff, the lease expired on 11.12.2019 and despite notice to vacate the suit property, Defendant did not vacate and hand over the possession, compelling the Plaintiff to file a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

5. The Trial Court has passed a decree of possession with respect to the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff, exercising power on its own motion under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC vide order/judgment dated 29.08.2022. Insofar as the mesne profits/damages are concerned, the matter is still pending before the Trial Court. By the same order dated 29.08.2022, the Trial Court has allowed the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XV-A CPC for striking off the defence of the Defendant, upon failure of the Defendant to comply with the order dated 08.04.2022, whereby the Trial Court had directed deposit of Rs.55,80,000/- towards arrears of charges for use and occupation and a further deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- per month till vacation of suit property or disposal of the suit, whichever was earlier. Vide order dated 10.06.2022, the timelines for deposit were extended till 07.07.2022.

6. Assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the Defendant primarily contends that contrary to the finding of the Trial Court and the stand of the Plaintiff, the lease had not expired on 11.12.2019 as the same was renewed for a further period and that the Defendant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement to incorporate the said fact. However, the Trial Court erroneously decided the application under Order XV-A prior to the decision on the application for amendment, which has gravely prejudiced the defence of the Defendant. Interestingly, during the course of arguments, counsel for Defendant takes a stand, which was not taken before the Trial Court and submits that initially its