Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Narain Das – Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority Civil Judge S.D. Lucknow And Ors. – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No.34244 of 2019
Decided on : 24-02-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 - Rule 17 - U.P. Act - Section 21 (1) (a) –Suit for Eviction - Petitioner is tenant of a shop on a monthly rent respondent no.3 is landlord of the property in question - One Mukund Lal filed a Suit for eviction against petitioner alleging himself to be landlord - Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit Mukund Lal Agarwal Vs. Narain Das, and allowed petitioner preferred a S.C.C. Revision - There was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mukund Lal Agarwal and the petitioner - Whether by allowing the amendment the real controversy between the parties may be resolved - Under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper (Para 17,22).
Finding of the Court: I
n view of the error of description of property in plaint, defendant had to suffer injunction against their own property. In such a case ends of justice would be met by allowing the proposed amendment subject to payment of cost by the plaintiff - Amendment can be allowed at any stage and the question of delay in moving amendment application should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of Suit alone but by reference to stage to which the hearing of the Suit had proceeded. Pre-trial amendment is allowed very liberally than those which are sought to be made after commencement of trial or after conclusion thereof - Court has perused the amendment application and finds that the observations made by the learned trial court regarding the fact that it would not be just and proper to allow such amendment application at such belated stage to be rightly rejected and a judicious exercise of its power.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, in P.A. Case No.57 of 2015: Smt. Ram Kumari and Another Vs. Narain Dass.
3. By the order impugned, the application for amendment Paper no. C-44 of the written statement moved by the petitioner who is the respondent/ tenant has been rejected.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant of a shop situated in ground floor of a building facing Gungay Nawab Park (Ram Krishna Park), Aminabad, Lucknow, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. Sri Rajeev Agarwal the respondent no.3 is the landlord of the property in question. One Mukund Lal filed a Suit for eviction against the petitioner alleging himself to be the landlord. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit no.67 of 1990: Mukund Lal Agarwal Vs. Narain Das, and allowed on 19.12.1992. The petitioner preferred a S.C.C. Revision No.07 of 1993. The Revision was allowed on 04.09.1993 holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mukund Lal Agarwal and the petitioner.
5. Against the order passed by the Revisional Court, Mukund Lal Agarwal filed a Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993 before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, Mukund Lal Agarwal died. He had bequeathed the property in dispute in favour of Smt. Ram Kumari. On the basis of a Will, Smt. Ram Kumari moved an application for substitution in the Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993 which was allowed. Smt. Ram Kumari was substituted in place of the original petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 11.2.2013. The Court enhanced the rent from Rs.200/-per month to Rs.2,000/-per month, which was to be given to the landlords Smt. Ram Kumari and Rajeev Agarwal by the tenant with effect from 2014 and in case rent was not paid to the landlords, Smt. Ram Kumari and Rajeev Agarwal, they could jointly file a Suit for eviction against the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent.
The respondent nos.2 and 3 i.e. Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal did not file any Suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of payment of rent. They however jointly filed a Release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of shop in question as it was needed by the daughters-in-law of Smt. Ram Kumari i.e. for the wife of Sri Rajeev Agarwal and wife of Sri Sandeep Agarwal, her two sons. The petitioner filed a written statement denying any need of the plaintiffs on the basis of vague averments made in the release application. When the matter was ripe for hearing and the counsel was preparing the case for arguments, it came to the knowledge of the petitioners that in pursuance of judgment passed in Writ Petition No.158 (Rent Control) of 1993, Smt. Ram Kumari and Sri Rajeev Agarwal had been recognized as landlords although the Court had not expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the shop in question.
6. It has been submitted by Sri Vijay Krishna Srivastava that at no point of time the petitioner had recognized the respondent no.2 as his landlady. The petitioner was paying the rent only to the respondent no.3 Rajeev Agarwal, who was the landlord therefore the application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) was not maintainable on behalf of Smt. Ram Kumari and an application for amendment was therefore moved for permission to amend the written statement to add paragraph-22A and 22B after the existing paragraph-22 of the written statement. The application for amendment was objected to by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The trial court wrongly rejected the application for amendment by the impugned order. In doing so, the High Court’s order was ignored by the trial court. The High Court had ob
Amendment can be allowed at any stage and the question of delay in moving amendment application should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of Suit alone but by refer....
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
Point of Law : Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend ....
Amendment of written statements post-trial commencement is not permissible if it contradicts prior admissions regarding landlord-tenant relationships.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
