The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment sought at the initial stage of the trial, which is clarificatory in nature and not belated, should not be rejected based on the correctness of the stand sought to be introduced, and that the issue of admission of landlord-tenant relationship would be decided after evidence is led in the suit.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the parties.

3. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 3.1.2019 passed by Judge Small Causes Court in SCC Suit No. 51 of 2015, whereby the application 42-Ga filed by the defendant-revisionist seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

4. By the amendment sought, the defendant-revisionist tried to bring on record the fact that Sanjeev Kumar Khanna and Rajeev Kumar Khanna, sons of the plaintiff are the owners and landlord of the disputed premises and not the plaintiff. It is alleged that the sons of the plaintiff purchased an open piece of land by registered sale deed dated 10.1.1975. Thereafter they constructed shops over the same including two shops in possession of the defendant-revisionist. They also let out the shop to various tenants including the defendant-revisionist. The plaintiff collected rent from the defendant-revisionist on behalf of his sons. There exist no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant-revisionist. The plaintiff had no locus to institute the suit.

5. The amendment has been rejected by the court below by observing that the assertion made in plaint that the defendant-revisionist is tenant, has been admitted by him in paragraphs 1 and 12 of the written statement. Therefore, the defendant-tenant is seeking to withdraw the admission by the amendment sought. It has also been observed that the explanation furnished by the defendant-revisionist for not being able to raise the above pleas in the original written statement regarding lack of knowledge of English language is not correct as he had signed the written statement and other documents in English. It has also been observed that several dates had been fixed for cross-examination of PW-1 but the defendant-revisionist had been seeking adjournment. The application seeking amendment has therefore been rejected.

6. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the entire plaint, the plaintiff did not assert that he is the owner or landlord of the disputed premises. It is further submitted that in paragraphs 1 and 13 of the written statement, it is specifically pleaded that the defendant-revisionist is tenant on behalf of the plaintiff's sons. Thus, according to her, the amendment sought was only to elaborate the existing pleadings and no admission was being withdrawn.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party submitted that the defendant-revisionist has admitted that he had been tendering rent to the plaintiff, therefore it is not open to him to resile from the said stand.

8. A perusal of the plaint assertions would show that in the entire plaint, there is no pleading that the defendant-revisionist is tenant on behalf of the plaintiff, although it is asserted that he had served a notice determining the tenancy and the defendant-tenant had not complied with the notice.

9. Paragraph 1 of the plaint reads as follows :-

"That the defendant was tenant in occupation and possession of a shop bounded as blow, constructed in Khanna Market, situated at 725, Sufi Tola, Opp. Ghujral Petrol Pump Bareilly, on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- exclusive of Municipal Taxes and the tenancy of defendants starts from 1st day of each English calender month."

10. Paragraph 1 of the written statement, which is reply to paragraph one of the plaint, reads as follows :-

"That in contents of para No.1 of the plaint it is true that defendant is tenant of the shop for and on behalf of defendant his Son Sanjeev Khanna in Khanna Market, Sufi Tola, Opp. Gujral Petrol Pump Shyamganj Road, Bareilly. It is also admitted that the tenancy starts from 1st day of each calender month. Rest contents are wrong and not admitted and are denied. Boundaries of the shop are wrong."

11. Paragraph 12 of the written statement which has been referred to in the impugned order reads as follows :-

"That true facts are that d