Suraj Prakash Mahajan vs Lachman Dass

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

(1) This revision petition is directed against the order made by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 27-7-1992 whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff .under 2, CPC was dismissed. With a view to appreciate the nature of the Order 6 Rule 17, CPC as well as application under Order 13 Rule amendment sought for the petitioner it would by useful to briefly notice the facts of the case asunder :-

(2) Eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent resulted in an order of eviction being passed against the respondent and in favor of the petitioner u/s 19(1)(f) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Under Clause (f) an order of recovery of possession of the premises can be made if the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The litigation under the Rent Act went up to Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 3/05/1990 directed that the petitioner shall complete the reconstruction of the shop as per the plan within a period of three months from the date of the order and handover the same to the respondent herein within a month thereafter. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of that order of the Supreme Court he reconstructed the entire premises No. 820, Chowk Baoli, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, and thereafter he offered the new tenancy of the shop to defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000.00. The offer is stated to have been given by written notice delivered to the defendant. According to plaint, defendant took possession on 24/08/1990 and he became a tenant of the newly constructed premises at the rent of Rs. 10,000.00 to month. Further, the petitioner''s case is that the respondent/defendant did not pay the rent at the rate of Rs. Iu, per month since 24/08/1990 and, Therefore, the suit for recovery of rent with interest was filed.

(3) The suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant on various grounds, one of it being that no new tenancy as claimed by the plaintiff came into existence after the repairs made by the plaintiff. According to defendant, the rate of rent continues to be Rs. 42.50 and there was no occasion for surrender of the first tenancy or creation of the new fresh tenancy. The defendant has denied the rate of rent of Rs. 10,000.00 per month.

(4) According to the plaintiff the defendant gave his consent by conduct to take the premises on rent of Rs. 10.000.00 per month The amendment sought for in the plaint now is to introduce a plea stated to be an alternate plea to the effect that the value of the reconstructed shop on the date of the commencement of reconstruction, in June 1990 and on its completion before delivery of possession to defendant on 24/08/1990 was Rs. 5,62,000.00 and the reasonable return on the said amount comes to rs. 10.000.00 per month on the market rate of interest. In short, the plaintiff wants to introduce a plea that in case the plaintiff is unable to prove that the defendant by conduct agreed to pay Rs. 10,000.00 per month as rent for the shop, than Rs. 10,000.00 be fixed as reasonable amount of rent, keeping in view the amounts spent on reconstruction and reasonable return on that amount.

(5) THE/TRIAL Court has come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment would totally change the nature of the suit inasmuch as the plaintiff had come to the Court with a specific plea regarding creation of tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000.00and now he wants to set up the plea that amount of Rs. 10,000.00 should be considered as reasonable on the basis of the cost of construction etc.

(6) Apart from the ground as to the change of the nature of the suit, in my opinion, the amendment sought for is not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties, It is not for the Civil Court to determine as to what would be the reasonable rate of rent and thus the question as to what amount was spent on reconstruction would be wholly unnecessary. I may also refer to letter dated 24/08/1990 written by Mr. S.P. Pandey ,Advocate, to Counsel for the respondent who was representing him in the Supreme Court, stating that in obedience to the directions of the Supreme Court, bunch of the keys of the shop in question were being delivered to the respondent. That letter does not make reference to any rent of Rs. 10,000.00 per month.

(7) For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.