1983 Supreme(MP) 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U.N. Bhachawat, J.
Ghanshyam - Applicant
Vs.
Kailash Narayan - Non-applicant
C.R. No. 452 of 1981 (G)
Decided On : 25-06-1983

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.6, R.17 – amendment in written statement – sought at late stage – delay not explained satisfactorily – amendment also not necessary – order of rejection is proper.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.14, R.5 – additional issue – framing of – proposed additional issue duly covering existing issues – additional issue need not be framed.

       (3) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (MP) – S.12(1)(f) – suit for eviction under – landlord need not be exclusive owner of the tenanted premises.

        Short Note

       This is a revision by the defendant against the order dated 22-4-1981 of the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Guna in Civil Suit No. 121-A/80. By this order the trial Court has disposed of the various applications filed on behalf of the defendant. In this revision the defendant has raised a grievance with regard to the rejection of his application (I.A. No. 3) under Order 6 rule 17, Civil Procedure Code by which he had sought permission to amend the written statement and the partial rejection of his another application (I.A. No. 4) under Order 14 rule 5, Civil Procedure Code.

       2. Held : It is clear that the defendant-applicant herein has clearly admitted the ownership of the house of the plaintiff non-applicant herein, as also the landlordship of the plaintiff. The present application was made two years after the filing of the written statement when the case was at the stage of evidence of the parties and as observed by the trial Court, the defendant did not give any explanation for this belated application.

       3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the explanation for the delay is given in the application inasmuch as it is written therein that earlier of making of the application the defendant did not know that along-with the plaintiff, his brother, sister and mother are also the owners of the suit house. He further submitted that since the suit has been filed for ejectment under section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, it is very necessary to decide whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit accommodation or not and as such it is necessary for the adjudication of the point in controversy that the proposed amendment should be allowed. To quote, the amendment proposed was:

       ^^in Øekad 1 & okni= ds in Øekad 1 dk mRrj gS fd bl in esa of.kZr Hkou dk Lokeh dsoy oknh dSyk'kukjk;.k dk gksuk Lohdkj ugha gSA oknxzLr Hkou vkSj bl in esa of.kZr Hkou ds iwoZ Lokeh oknh ds LoxhZ; firk vk'kkjketh FksA muds LoxZokl ds i'pkr~ fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkj ds vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj LoxhZ; vk'kkjke ds iq= iqf=;k¡ vkSj fo/kok iRuh Lokeh gq,%&

       ¼1½ oknh Lo;a

       ¼2½ jk/ks';ke iq= vk'kkjke

       ¼3½ jkeI;kjh ckbZ fo/kok iRuh vk'kkjke

       ¼4½ xhrkckbZ iq=h vk'kkjke

       ¼5½ lCcks ckbZ iq=h vk'kkjke

       ¼6½ jk/kkckbZ iq=h vk'kkjkeA**

       4. According to this amendment also, the defendant admits that the plaintiff is a joint owner. Section 12(1)(f), M.P. Accommodation Act does not require that the plaintiff landlord should be the exclusive owner. In this view of the matter also, the proposed amendment is not necessary. Further, the reason assigned for the delay is also not satisfactory. As such the amendment disallowed on the ground that it is neither bonafide nor necessary for the adjudication of the point, is just and no interference can be made.

       5. I now turn to the consideration of the partial rejection of I.A. No. 4. The Proposed issue which the trial Court has rejected, is on the ground that it has been already covered in issue No.2 and 3 and the defendant would be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal which he wants to lead on the basis of the proposed issue. In this view of the matter, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court in partially disallowing I.A. No. 4. Revision dismissed.