Amendment applications must not contradict existing admissions in pleadings; consistency is crucial in maintaining jurisdiction under property law.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Dismissal of application for amendment by trial court upheld as being consistent with the existing admissions and averments regarding the construction timeline and tenant status. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 3(d) - Jurisdiction considerations in relation to tenant's possession of property and the implications of amendments on existing legal positions. (Paras 7-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's dismissal of her application to amend her written statement concerning the timeline of property construction and her tenancy status. The respondent claimed tenancy created after property construction in 2012.

Findings of Court:
No infirmity found in trial court's dismissal of the amendment application; the petitioner cannot withdraw admissions made in the original written statement, affecting jurisdiction under relevant Rent Control Act.

Issues: The core issue addressed was whether the trial court erred in denying the amendment application regarding timelines of construction and possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the trial court correctly found the petitioner's proposed amendment contradictory to established facts and admissions, reinforcing the importance of consistency in pleadings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the suit and tenancy details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner denies facts of construction and tenancy. (Para 3 , 4)
3. petitioner's application for amendment. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's reasoning on amendment denial. (Para 7)
5. affirmation of the trial court's order. (Para 8)
6. dismissal of the petition. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

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 Judge- South 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 sil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document