A tenant cannot amend their written statement to contradict a prior denial of landlord-tenant relationship, as this would alter the fundamental nature of the case.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J.

CM-21045-CII of 2023

This application has been filed by the applicant-petitioners for placing on record the testimony of petitioner PW-1, as Annexure A1.

2. Allowed as prayed for. Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CR-6672 of 2023

Instant revision petition has been filed by the tenant impugning the order dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar, whereby application filed by him under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement has been dismissed.

3. Brief facts as averred in the petition are that the respondent-landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner-tenants which was contested by the present Petitioners by filing a detailed written statement wherein relationship of landlord and tenant was denied.

4. Before proceeding further, it is apt to mention here that when the case was pending for cross-examination of PW1, an application was filed by the petitioner-tenants for assessment of provisional rent and in the said application it was stated that petitioner-tenants have never denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in the written statement but they have only mentioned that they were not aware about the transfer of title in favour of the respondent-landlord. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide order dated 05.12.2022 by passing following order: -

"Heard on the application filed on behalf of the Respondents for assessment of provisional rent. It has been stated that the case is pending for cross examination of PW1. It has been further stated that the Respondents have never denied the relationship of landlord/tenant in the written reply but they have only mentioned that they were not aware about the transfer of title in favour of the petitioner. As per the application, deceased Rakesh Kumar, one of the partners of the firm M/s Pyare Lal & Sons has paid rent to the petitioner and that Respondents no.1 and 2 were not aware about it. It has been prayed that since the Respondents are ready to pay the provisional rent alongwith cost and interest, the same may be assessed.

In reply, it has been stated that when the Respondents have denied the relationship of landlord/tenant in the written reply, the question of assessment of provisional rent does not arise. It has been further stated that once the Respondents have taken a particular stand, they cannot be allowed to contradict their own stand. A prayer has been made for dismissal of the application.

It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the written reply by the Respondents, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of petitioner, since the Respondents in their reply had categorically stated that they deny the relationship of landlord/tenant between the parties. The instant application has been filed when the case was fixed for cross examination of PW1.

It is the case of the Respondents that they have never denied the relationship of landlord/tenant between the parties and that they have only mentioned that they were not aware of the transfer of title in favour of the petitioner. However, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted in view of para no. 3 of the written reply wherein the Respondents have clearly denied the relationship of landlord/tenant between the parties. Further, in para no.2 of the reply, the Respondents have stated that they have been tenants of the earlier owner. Further, in sub para no.1 of para no. 5, it has been stated that the relationship of landlord/tenant is denied because the Respondents were not aware of the transfer of title in favour of petitioner. In the considered opinion of this court, the denial of relationship of landlord/tenant by the Respondents in their written reply is very clear. Merely mentioning that the relationship is denied because the Respondents were not awa