Ram Chandra Gupta vs Krishna Purwar

R.N. Ray, J.—The Defendant-revisionist has referred this revision against the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Farrukhabad dated 13.6.96 in appeal No. 7 of 1987 in between Krishna Purwar and Ram Chandra Gupta.

It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the amendment as prayed for in the instant case will not in any way change the plea of the Defendant/revisionist altogether and that will have no effect upon the merit of the suit. It has been submitted that the Plaintiff-opposite party filed suit against the revisionist for eviction on the ground that the Defendant was defaulter in making payment of rent for more than 6 years and the Defendant made some constructions and made structural changes which caused prejudice to the Plaintiff and also on the ground that the Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiff because the Defendant although asserted that the Plaintiff was not the owner but he was the Sarvarakar of the trust property. Dharmarth Pushkar Narayan Sree Krishna. Plaintiffs name is Sri. Krishna who asserted to be the landlord of the suit property in his personal capacity. In this amendment petition, the Defendant-revisionist wanted to delete some portion from the written statement wherein he denied /challenged the title of the Plaintiff and inter alia, he asserted that Dharmarth Pushkar Narayan Shree Krishna was the owner and so the suit ought to have been filed on behalf of the trustees through this Sarvarakar who happened to be other than the present Plaintiff, It has been contended that the prayer for amendment was refused by the learned Court below and so he has come up before this Court with this revision petition.

It has been strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the other side/Plaintiff-landlord. It has been contended that plaint suit was dismissed on the ground that the Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiff in view of provisions u/s 20(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It has been contended that this amendment petition was sought for nothing but simply to defeat tlie Plaintiffs suit as the suit was decreed not on the ground that the Defendant was defaulter or was found guilty of making any material changes of the tenanted premises to the prejudice of the Plaintiff but on the ground that Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiff. It was contended that Defendant was misled by the acts of the Plaintiff as the rent was to be realised by the Plaintiff or on behalf of the trust and so he took alternative defence in his written statement contending that the Plaintiff cannot get relief as he was not the owner of the suit premises. Plaintiff ought not lo have allowed to take advantage of his own deceitful acts which misled the Defendant. So, the learned Court below ought not to have dismissed the prayer for amendment of written statement. In this connection, learned Counsel for the revisionist, has placed reliance in a case Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply Gurgaon, , wherein their Lordships held that if an amendment application is moved, it Is the decretion of the Court and it should not be dismissed on technical grounds. He has also referred to another decision wherein it was held that in an appropriate case if an amendment is sought for at a belated stage and if the Court thinks that the amendment should be allowed, then the Court should allow the amendment petition against sufficient costs.

Learned Counsel for the opposite-party submitted that it is not a case where only a belated application was filed for amendment of the plaint, but by the amendment the Defendant wanted to wipe out the benefit which the Plaintiff got from the written statement wherein the Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiff. The said written statement was the basis of success of Plaintiffs suit. In this connection, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-opposite party referred to a decision in Hem Rajendra Bahaguria v. District Judge, Nainital and Ors. 1995 ARC 311 , wherein Hon''ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur held that amendment in a written statement was sought for after conclusion of landlord''s evidence, so that amendment should not be allowed, as it was found that tenant wanted to take entirely a new plea to defeat the plaint-case and that judgment was passed relying upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as reported in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., .

Duly considered the submissions of both sides. Defendant filed written statement and he had all the documents and materials with him which were exhibited in his defence in the Court below on accepting them as rent receipts and he wanted to resist Plaintiffs claim by denying Plaintiffs title but it was held by the learned Court below that Plaintiff was the owner-landlord and issues were decided accordingly and both sides were heard at length and the learned Court below decreed the suit and if no amendment application is allowed, the suit is likely to fail because the Plaintiff would be deprived to get the decree of eviction under the provisions of Section 20(2)(f) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In the circumstances, I do not think that at such a belated stage, this amendment application should be allowed because that plea may completely defeat the Plaintiffs case which was considered by the learned Court below taking into account all the evidence as adduced by the parties. As such, the revision petition fails. The revision application is not admitted and stands rejected. I do not order as to costs.