The High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of an amendment to the written statement, affirming that such amendments are allowed only under specific conditions and do not alter the nature of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No.10 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected declining them to insert a new paragraph in the written statement being paragraph no.22(a) for making addition that the plaintiff during pendency of the suit has converted two shops into one shop and let out the said shop to a tenant named “Puja Confectionary” and the aforesaid business of Puja Confectionary was formally inaugurated on 05.02.2023.

2. The brief fact as per the pleadings made in the writ petition needs to be referred herein.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that a suit for eviction has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent under the provision of Section 11(1)(c) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. The Eviction Suit has been filed mainly on two grounds – first is the personal necessity and second is default in making of payment of rent.

4. The petitioners/defendants have filed written statement wherein the very relationship of landlord-tenant has been disputed. Subsequent to filing of the said written statement, by way of subsequent development, the plaintiff has converted two shops into one shop and let out the same to one Puja Confectionary which was inaugurated on 05.02.2023. The petitioners/defendants want to bring the aforesaid facts on record by insertion of new paragraph in the written statement being paragraph no.22(a).

5. The said issue has been considered by the learned Trial Court and on consideration of the fact that the petitioners/defendants have disputed the very title of the plaintiff for which the Court is to see the issue of payment of rent by the tenant, has rejected the said petition which led to filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

6. Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants, has submitted that the impugned order suffers from error on the ground that the insertion which has been sought to be made by filing petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) has not been properly considered.

7. It has been submitted that the ground of personal necessity is also one of the grounds in addition to default in payment of rent. The submission has made that in order to disprove the ground of personal necessity, the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement is necessary to be incorporated, since, during pendency of the trial, two shops have been converted into one shop and has been sublet in favour of one Puja Confectionary and, hence, whatever ground has been taken regarding personal necessity, cannot be said to be proper.

8. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that since letting out of the aforesaid shops in favour of Puja Confectionary being the subsequent cause of action and it is relevant to disprove the ground of personal necessity, but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the petition filed under order VI rule 17 has been rejected, therefore, the present writ petition.

Analysis

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

10. It is evident from the factual aspect that dispute for eviction has been filed on the two grounds. First is the personal necessity and second is default in making payment of rent.

11. The defendants/ petitioners have filed written statement and have taken the ground by disputing the very title of the plaintiff so as to disprove the ground of eviction, but the petition has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC during pendency of the trial, which has occa