IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the necessity of proposed amendments for determining the real controversy between the parties and considered the due diligence requirement for allowing amendments after the commencement of the trial.

JUDGMENT

Shalinder Kaur, J. - The original defendant i.e. petitioner herein, has instituted the present petition impugning the order dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Court of learned District Judge (Commercial Court) - 03, West (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Commercial Suit No. 57/2023 titled as 'Smt. Raj Bala Tanwar v. Dhruv Kumar Sinha', whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as 'CPC') for amendment of written statement.

2. Pertinently, the learned Trial Court vide the same order on 23.09.2023 passed a decree for possession of the subject property i.e., WZ-508B/3, situated as Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110015, under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the Regular First Appeal (Comm.) in other proceedings. Thus, the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court for adjudication of arrears of rent and mesne profit/ damages.

3. The dispute between the parties is related to possession of the subject property i.e. One hall on the Ground Floor of property no. WZ-508B/3, situated as Village Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110015, and for recovery of arrears of rent.

4. This Court deems it apposite to extract relevant facts.

5. The petitioner in January, 2014 took the subject property on rent from the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. The tenancy was extended/ renewed from time to time. On 20.01.2021, a fresh rent agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent for a period of 33 months @ Rs. 15,000/- per month.

6. It is the case of the petitioner herein that eventually, the respondent herein asked the petitioner to vacate the subject property even when the petitioner was regularly paying the rent and abided by the terms and conditions of the rent agreement. On 05.07.2022, the respondent was served a legal demand notice upon the petitioner thereby alleging that since the petitioner had not paid the rent, thus, the tenancy stands terminated and asked the petitioner to handover the possession of the subject property to the respondent. On 21.07.2022, the petitioner replied to the above notice and mentioned that the petitioner had paid up-to-date rent and had not defaulted and, thus, the alleged termination of his tenancy is illegal.

7. On 29.08.2022, the respondent filed an ordinary civil suit bearing no. Civ. DJ No. 781/2022 against the petitioner for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit, damages, etc. in respect of the subject property, and consequently, on 30.08.2022, the above-said suit was withdrawn by the respondent on technical grounds. On 24.12.2022, the respondent filed a Commercial Suit seeking aforesaid reliefs which the petitioner contested by filing a detailed written submission.

8. On 01.08.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for amendment in the written statement. The respondent filed a reply to the application and on the same date, the learned Trial Court heard the arguments. The learned Trial Court also disposed of the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and also decided the issue of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC vide a common order passed on 23.09.2023.

9. The impugned order returns the following findings against the petitioner on his application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

"9. None of those amendments sought by the defendant are necessary to be incorporated in the WS and it is not justified by the defendant as to why these pleas were not taken in the detailed WS already tiled. The WS was filed by the defendant on 28.04.2023, whereas the present application has been filed on 01.08.2923. The plea of the, defendant that the WS was filed urgently, is uninspiring as the defendant was served on 23.03.2023 whereas the WS was filed on 28.04.2023, that is after 30 days. On 23.05.