JUDGMENT

Indermeet Kaur, J. (Oral)

1. Order impugned is the order dated 24.9.2011 vide which the application filed by the tenant seeking amendment of his application for leave to defend under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. on the ground that there is bonafide requirement of the one of the directors of the landlord company namely Amit Deep Kohli of the disputed premises for his residence. The disputed premises are the ground floor of premises bearing no. 138-A, Golf Links, New Delhi which has been tenanted out to the tenant/petitioner namely Madhu Gupta. Application for leave to defend had been filed on 23.7.2010; present application seeking amendment of the said application for leave to defend had been filed about ten months later i.e. on 09.5.2011. In the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code the submission made by the tenant is that the director of the landlord company namely Amit Deep Kohli is a director in other holding companies of the petitioner as well and details of the said companies have been given para 3 of the said application; contention being that the present petition has been filed only to harass the petitioner as other properties are also available with the petitioner company; further contention being that the company Speed Lines Pvt. Ltd. has commercial flats at six places details of which have been mentioned in the said application; there is no bonafide need of the present accommodation; the application further wishes to incorporate the factum that the tenant is an old ailing lady staying alone at the aforenoted premises and the intent of the legislation i.e. the Delhi Rent Control Act would be destroyed if such like petitions are allowed. This is the gist of the amendment application.

3. Reply has been filed by the landlord to the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. On behalf of the landlord it has been urged that the properties which have been detailed in the application for amendment stating that Amit Deep Kohli is a director of the aforenoted company which has commercial flats at various places, are all located in Gurgaon; submission is that the landlord is a construction company and is carrying on its commercial activity of construction; the aforenoted properties are commercial flats and admittedly not a part of Delhi; the premises in dispute is bonafide required by the director of the company for his own need; the present accommodation where the petitioner is putting up his family is small to accommodate his wife and two children.

4. The impugned order had dismissed the application primarily on the ground that an application seeking amendment is not permissible in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA as the procedure enlisted for dealing with such an application is contained in Section 25(B) of the said Act and in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 15 Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh, such an application could not be entertained.

5. This order is the subject matter of the present petition.

6. On behalf of the petitioner it has vehemently been urged that the judgment of Prithipal Singh (supra) is peculiar to the facts of the said case; contention being that in that case application for leave to defend was not filed within the stipulated period whereupon the court had noted that the time could not be extended for the said purpose and in that scenario it has been noted that Rule 23 of Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 is inapplicable. Facts of the instant case are different. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported in 2009 10 (AD)Delhi 284 Ved Prakash & Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Jain wherein an amendment application seeking permission to amend an application for leave to defend had been consi