Ramu Nath vs Raj Kumar

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This order will dispose civil revision No. 1582 and civil revisions No. 1470 of 1992. The facts are being taken from civil revision No. 1582 of 1992.

This revision petition is against the order of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Guhla, dated 8,4.1992 whereby the C.R. No. 1528 of 1992. The petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement has been declined.

Briefly put, the landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession in the court of Sub Judge I Class, Guhla, on the ground that the house subject-matter of the suit land was constructed on 15.11.1983 and so was not within the purview of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Eviction) Act, 1973. this fact was admitted in the written statement. The petitioner vide application seeking amendment sought permission of the court to amend the written statement on the ground that by an oversight this averment of the plaintiff that house was constructed on 15.11.1983 was admitted whereas in fact the construction of the house was completed prior to the year 1960. This application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that defendant cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission made by him the secondly, amendment sought is not at all neccessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The determination of as to whether a building was constructed in the year 1960 or in the year 1983 has in fact material bearing on the point in controversy as in the former it would oust the jurisdiction of the civil court whereas in the later, the suit would be held to be competent. Even otherwise, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the house in dispute was constructed in the year 1983, else the suit would not be otherwise competent in a civil court.

The C.R. No. 1582 of 1992.

The amendment sought appears to be just and necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Even otherwise, the law of amendment has become fairly liberal. As regards the delay in seeking the amendment, the other party can be compensated by costs. I, accordingly, accept this revision-Petition, allow the petitioner to amend the written statement subject to payment" of Rs. 1,000/- as costs in both the cases. The parties are directed to apear before the trial Court on 10.9.1992.