Subhagya Wati vs Tarsem Lal

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is revision against the order of Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dated 28.8.1992 whereby he refused to allow Smt. Subhagya Wati and her son to amend their application for ejectment to say that the rate of rent was Rs. 425/ per month with effect from 1.4.1988.

This application has arisen in the following circumstances.

Smt. Subhagya Wati and her son Rajinder Kumar sought ejectment of Tarsem Lal and others on grounds of nonpayment of arrears of rent and subletting. It was alleged in the plaint that the shop was in the tenancy of Ram Parkash at a rental of Rs. 140/ per month. Later on, compromise took place and the rent was increased from Rs. 140/ to Rs. 400/ per month with effect from 1.4.1987. Under the law, no yearly increase in the rent can be given even if any such term has been incorporated in the compromise. It was, however, agreed by Ram Parkash orally to increase Rs. 25/ in the month of April every year. They became entitled to receive Rs. 425/ per month with effect from 1.4.1988. Tarsem Lal son of Ram Parkash made payment of rent on behalf of his predecessor Ram Parkash to Rajinder Kumar on 25.8.1988 at Hoshiarpur at this rate. For the month of March, 1988, payment of rent was made at the rate of Rs. 400/ whereas payment was made at Rs. 425/ from 1.4.1988 onwards. In this manner, rate of rent was Rs. 425/ per month with effect from 1.4.1988. It was alleged in the amendment application that Smt. Subhagya Wati and her son Rajinder Kumar are residing in UP and the application was drafted by a counsel at Hoshiarpur on her instructions. She could not instruct her counsel fully as to when the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 425/ per month and, therefore, she sought to amend the ejectment application into saying that rate of rent was Rs. 425/ per month with effect from 1.4.1988 onwards and receipt to this effect was issued in the name of Ram Parkash.

This application was opposed by the respondents urging that this amendment should not be allowed as if this amendment is allowed, that would tantamount to enabling them to withdraw their admission that the rate of rent was Rs. 400/ per month. No admission should be permitted to be withdrawn if it works to the detriment of the other party. It was denied that there was any compromise. Rent was increased from Rs. 400/ to Rs. 425/ per month at the time when new tenancy was created. Receipt was issued fraudulently in the name of Ram Parkash who had already died. Shri Shakti Singh counsel for Subhagya Wati etc. had made statement in the court that the rate of rent was Rs. 400/ per month with effect from September, 1988. No mention was made at that time about the alleged oral agreement. Rent was tendered at the rate of Rs. 425/ per month, though the same had been claimed at Rs. 400/ per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. By amendment an admission of fact can be withdrawn. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Kr. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 462. It was submitted that pleading can be taken in amendment petition. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Akshaya Restaurant v. P. Anjanappa and another, 1955 Supp.(2) S.C.C. 203. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the omission on the part of the tenant to state true facts in the written statement had occurred because of the nonavailability of the rent note and the tenant subsequently by proposed amendment wanted to correct the facts as stated in the lease deed which was duly registered then if something has been incorrectly stated in ignorance of true facts the defendant would be entitled to place true and correct facts before the court. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Ambica Parshad v. Devi Mandir, Karnal, 1986(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 202 : AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 313. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admission on a point of fact can well be withdrawn if it is shown to have been made erroneously or in ignorance of true facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admission on a point of fact can well be withdrawn if it is shown to have been made erroneously or in ignorance of true facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rate of rent was increased to Rs. 425/ per month with effect from 1.4.1988 because for the period 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 wine contract was to be run in the shop.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in the written statement the respondent had clearly stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 400/ per month and it was not increased to Rs. 425/ per month. It was submitted that no amendment should be allowed which effects prejudicially the rights of the other party. It was submitted that no doubt, the law as to amendment of pleadings is liberal but this does not mean that no principle should be followed while permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Randhir Singh v. Kamlesh and others, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 70. In support of their plea that rate of rent was increased to Rs. 425/ per month, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to receipt dated 25.8.1988 showing the receipt of Rs. 2550/ as rent for five months i.e. from April to September. Rajinder Kumar stated that this amount was paid by Tarsem Lal to him. Tarsem Lal is the son of Ram Parkash. Rajinder Kumar has stated that he had issued receipt No. 936 dated 25.8.1988 at the rate of Rs. 400/ per month for March, 1988 to Tarsem Lal for the rent received from him on behalf of Ram Parkash. He issued receipt No. 937 dated 25.8.1988 for Rs. 2550/ to Tarsem Lal for the rent paid by him on behalf of his father Ram Parkash. Payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 425/ per month was not denied but it is stated that the enhancement was allowed when new tenancy was created.

Looking to all the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the proposed amendment should be allowed. Proposed amendment is allowed on payment of Rs. 2,000/ as costs subject to all just exceptions. Allowing proposed amendment will not prejudicially affect the rights of respondents Tarsem Lal and others so far as first date of hearing is concerned. Parties shall appear before the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur on 15.12.1999 when they shall be called upon to put in amended plaint. After they put in amended plaint, the respondents shall be called upon to put in reply thereto. After they put in reply, the petitioners shall be called upon to put in rejoinder and if they put in rejoinder, the case shall be posted for the framing of issues. It is the date when issues are framed, which will be first date of hearing.

Revision allowed.