Sat Narain and Others vs Bharat Bhushan and Others

S.P. Goyal, J.—The Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the shop on the ground that it had been let out to the predecessors-in-interest of the Dafendants on August 22, 1961, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- and that on the death of Prabh Dial, the tenancy had come to an end. Thereafter, they moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to plead that the shop had been leased out on August 22, 1961 for a period of six months. This amendment has been allowed by the trial Court vide order dated December 8, 1980. Aggrieved thereby, the Dafendants, have come up in this revision petition.

From the original averments made in the plaint, the tenancy of Prabh Dial was obviously a tenancy at will. By the proposed amendment the stand taken in the plaint originally would stand withdrawn and a contradictory stand would be introduced that the tenancy was for a fixed period and after the expiry of that period Prabh Dial was a statutory tenant. The valuable admission made in favour of the Dafendants is thus sought to be withdrawn. Such a course is not permissible under the law. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on Raghvir Prashad etc. v. Chet Ram 1971 CLJ 612 for the proposition that even a new cause of action can be introduced by the amendment. The judgment, however, does warrant such a course and all that has been said is that an additional new cause of action may be pleaded by way of amendment-Even then it has been observed that the amendment can be allowed only if it causes no injustice to the other side. Here, by the withdrawal of the valuable admission made in favour of the Dafendants, they would suffer an injury which obviously cannot be compensated by costs. It was then contended that in the notice the Plaintiffs had already averred that Prabh Dial was a statutory tenant. The tenancy was for a fixed period and en its expiry, he becomes a statutory tenant. The non-mention of these facts in the plaint was, therefore, an accidental omission which could be introduced by way of an amendment What has been asserted in the notice has hardly any bearing on the question of amendment in the plaint. Ought we know, the averments in the notice may not have any basis. However, what is relevant at the moment is only the averment made in the plaint and not the one made in the notice. The trial Court, therefore, acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction for allowing amendment whereby a contradictory plea was allowed to be substituted. The impugned order is consequently quashed.

As the proceedings in the trial Court have been stayed, the parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear there on June 8, 1981. No costs.