Harbans Lal Verma vs M/s Reeta and Associates and others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The petitioner-tenant has challenged the order of the Rent Controller dated October 9, 1987, refusing permission to amend the written statement, in this revision petition.

The facts, briefly stated, are,-

The respondent filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the ejectment of the petitioner from a portion of Kothi bearing No. E.H. 199, Civil Lines Jalandhar, shown red in the plan attached therewith. In para No. 1 of the application, the following averments are made:-

That one Shri Dasondha Singh Advocate was the owner of the premises shown red in the site plan attached and fully described in the head note of the application. The respondent was a tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. Shri Dasondha Singh Advocate sold this property to M/s. Reeta and Associates, a partnership concern of which the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were some of the partners. In this way M/s. Reeta and Associates became the owner of the property in dispute. On 10-7-1981 dissolution was effected between the than partners of M/s. Reata and Associates. All assets and liabilities including the disputed premises were transferred to M/s. Reeta and Associates, petitioner No. 1 of which the petitioners No. 2 to 4 are the partners. As such, the petitioners became the owners of the disputed property end respondent became tenant under them on the same terms and conditions.

In the corresponding para of the written statement, the petitioners/tenant took the following stand:-

Para 1 is wrong and vague. It is correct that Sh. Dasondha Singh was the owner of Kothi No. EH 199. It is wrong that respondent was a tenant of the premises shown red on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. He was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- of the portion shown red. It is wrong that he sold property in dispute to Rita & Associates. It is also wrong that the petitioners 2 to 4 were its partners. It is wrong that Rita & Associates became owners. It is also wrong that there was any dissolution qua petitioners No. 2 to 4. It is also wrong that assets and liabilities including property in dispute were transferred to petitioners 2 to 4, who were not partners of petitioner No. 1. It is also wrong that petitioners became owners of the property in dispute. It is also, wrong that respondent became a tenant of petitioners 2 to 4 from 10-7-81.

The respondent/landlord filed an application u. O. 6 R. 17, C.P.C. and in para 3 of the application for amendment of the ejectment application, it was averred as follows:-

That by in advertent omission and clerical mistake, the premises in dispute could not be fully described in the site plan as well as the petition. In fact, the demised premises rented out to the respondent consist of three rooms and a Verandah whereas in the original site plan only one room had been shown by mistake as submitted above. The respondent has also taken an objection in his written statement that the ejectment application is for partial ejectment because the entire rented premises is not included in the petition. The amended site plan showing the entire rented premises consisting of three rooms and a Verandah is attached herewith.

The amendment was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. It appears that thereafter the petitioner/tenant moved an application u. O. 6 R. 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for taking the following preliminary objection:-

That premises being used as workshop was taken on rent in 1958, Garrage being used as store was taken on rent in 1964 and servant quarter was let out in 1976 by Shri Dasondha Singh Advocate to respondent, so one ejectment application with regard to 3 properties taken on rent at different intervals does not lie at all. Rent of workshop Rs. 50/-, Rent of Store is Rs. 40, and of servant quarter Rs. 10/-.

The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application giving rise to the instant revision petition.

Mr. N.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a new plea going to the root of the case can be allowed even at the first and appellate stage of litigation. Even an admission made by a party can be allowed to be withdrawn or explained away.

A brief resume of the facts given above indicates that the plea sought to be taken up by way of amendment is not inconsistent or destructive of the original plea taken in the written statement. The learned Rent Controller took a wholly erroneous view of the matter while holding that the amendment was lacking in bona fide, and was being sought for at a belated stage.

It is a settled rule of law that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:-

Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, later the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.

In Raghvir Prashad v. Chet Ram 1974 C.L.J. 612 Harbans Singh, C.J., held as follows:-

However negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated for by costs.

A plaintiff may add a new cause of action and the defendant may add a new defence. Even a new case may be allowed to be introduced. Thus, the mere fact, that the cause of action has been changed, is no ground per se for disallowing the amendment.

This judgment was followed by R.S. Narula, J. (as he then was), in Daya Ram v. Puran Chand 1974 C.L.J. 74, with the following observations:-

That the amendment was allowed at a late stage makes no difference as amendment of pleadings can be allowed in a suitable case and for good legal reasons even at the first or second appellate stage. If the new plea taken up by the defendant is incorrect, the plaintiff has nothing to fear. If on the other hand, the plea is factually correct, it would be a pity that a claim which cannot be decreed according to law would succeed so as to deprive a rightful owner of his property and of his fundamental right to own and possess the property merely because the vendee did not take up in his original written statement a legal plea which goes to the root of the case.

The learned Rent Controller took a very restricted view of the matter. As stated above, the amendment sought is not inconsistent with the original plea taken by the petitioner in the written statement. Even otherwise, it will be for the petitioner to prove the allegations made by him.

For the reasons stated above, I set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller disallowing the amendment, and allow the proposed amendment subject to payment of Rs. 350/- as costs. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs of this revision.