The court emphasized a liberal approach to amendments in written statements, allowing alternative defenses to ensure a complete adjudication and prevent the miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 (Sanjay Badoni vs. Pradeep Chopra and another), whereby the amendment application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking incorporation of a clarificatory and alternative plea in the written statement came to be rejected.

2. The controversy, in brief, arises out of SCC Case No. 1 of 2021 instituted by the respondents herein as plaintiffs for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question on the ground of default in payment of rent and termination of tenancy. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 holding, inter alia, that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the property in dispute and further directed the defendant to pay mesne profits.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023 before the learned District Judge, Haridwar. During pendency of the said revision, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement for incorporation of a clarificatory and explanatory averment and for raising an alternative plea regarding continuance of tenancy. The said amendment application, however, came to be rejected by the Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, primarily on the ground that the amendment was not permissible at that stage.

4. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of the amendment application and alleging jurisdictional error and illegality in exercise of discretion by the Revisional Court, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking interference with the impugned order.

5. The record further reflects that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted SCC Case No. 1 of 2021 before the Court of JSCC / Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar seeking recovery of arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 733/- per month, was in arrears of rent since 01.10.2020 and that the tenancy stood terminated through notice dated 13.12.2020. It was also pleaded that the property in question was a new construction assessed for the first time in the year 1987 and, therefore, exempt from the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

6. The petitioner herein, as defendant, contested the suit by filing written statement asserting, inter alia, that he had been a tenant since the time of the previous owner on the basis of lease dated 14.05.1997; that the property was an old construction; that the rent had been regularly tendered; that the plaintiffs had refused to accept rent sent through money order; and that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

7. After evidence of the parties, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable and directed eviction of the defendant along with payment of arrears and mesne profits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred SCC Revision No. 9 of 2023, during pendency