Suresh Kumar Jain vs C. Javerilal Mandot

Aravind Kumar, J.—These two revision petitions are filed by respondents being aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in HRC No. 241/2013, whereunder application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to add paragraph 6(a) to the statement of objections and application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead original owner namely, Sri Jagadguru Renukadi Panchacharya Free Boarding Samsthe, Sree Mahantara Mutt, has been dismissed.

Heard the arguments of Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners (respondents before the trial Court) and Sri. C.V. Annaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent/Caveator.

It is the contention of Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners that suit schedule premises had been let out to revision petitioners by respondent herein by virtue of lease having been entered into with the original owner Sri Jagadguru Renukadi Panchacharya Free Boarding Samsthe, Sree Mahantara Mutt. It is stated that Mutt who had executed lease in favour of respondent herein, has now issued notices to revision petitioners on 13.10.2014 specifically mentioning that tenancy created in favour of its tenant namely, respondent herein has been terminated by efflux of time and also had demanded that petitioner (in HRC No. 241/13) is due to Trust in a sum of Rs. 16,15,353/- and as such, said Trust has called upon revision petitioners to attorn the tenancy and by virtue of said notice and pay the arrears of rent. It is also contended by them that petitioner has become the tenant under the Trust, since Trust has assumed the ownership of petition schedule building. It was contended by the revision petitioners before the trial Court through these two applications that these events taken place subsequent to filing of eviction petition and as such, plea is required to be put forward in the statement of objections and also the Mutt now claiming title to property in question would be a necessary and proper party to proceedings and as such, sought for Mutt being impleaded as party to proceedings.

Trial Court after considering the objections filed to these two applications, has dismissed the applications on the ground that issue or lis between the Mutt and petitioners (in HRC No. 241/2013) cannot be gone into in an eviction proceedings and in view of the fact that petitioners (in HRC No. 241/13) being lessors, they are entitled to maintain eviction petition against its tenant. Hence, trial Court has dismissed both these two applications.

There is no dispute to the fact that petitioners in HRC No. 241/2013 had obtained lease of the area, where petition schedule premises is located, on lease for a period of 25 years from Sri Jagadguru Renukadi Panchacharya Free Boarding Samsthe, Sree Mahantara Mutt and said period of lease of 25 years, has now come to an end. However, just prior to the said period of lease coming to an end, lessee namely petitioners in HRC No. 241/2013 initiated eviction proceedings against its tenants including the revision petitioners herein. By virtue of tenancy between eviction petitioner (respondent herein) and Mutt, having come to an end by efflux of time notice came to be issued by its original owner namely Mutt to respondent in HRC No. 241/2013, i.e., revision petitioner on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant between revision petitioners and respondent, had stood extinguished by virtue of lease-deed executed by Mutt in favour of eviction petitioner having come to an end. As such, respondents in HRC No. 241/2013 intended to raise a plea in this regard by amending the statement of objections by inserting paragraph 6(a). The plea which they intend to be brought on record in their written statement reads as under:

"6(a). The original title owner of the property Sri Jagadguru Renukadi Panchacharya Free Boarding, popularly known as Sri Mahanthara Mutt, Chickpet, Bangalore - 560 053, issued a notice to these respondents holding attornment of these respondents'' tenant as a lawful sub-tenant. The notice is issued to the business concern of these respondents viz., M/s. Megdoot Bangles. These respondents tenancy is attorned conditionally with conditions that these respondents shall enter into a fresh agreement/new agreement on conditions mutually agreed between the Trust and these Respondents. These respondents have already indicated attornment of tenancy and the matter is pending before the Board of Trustees. That apart, there are certain conditions imposed to the effect that whatever amounts that have been paid as premium rent or advance to the petitioner, the Trust will not make payment. In view of the notice issued on 13.10.2014 calling upon attornment of tenancy, the eviction petition may be dismissed."

There cannot be dispute to the proposition that defendant/respondent is entitled to raise alternate pleas or even inconsistent pleas. It has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh and Others Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another Etc., that defendant would be entitled to raise an alternate plea. It has been held in the said judgment as under:

"13. In view of this decision, it can be said that the plea of limitation can be allowed to be raised as an additional defence by the appellants. Accordingly, we do not find any reason as to why amendment of the written statement introducing an additional plea of limitation could not be allowed. The next question is that if such amendment is allowed, certain admissions made would be allowed to be taken away which are not permissible in law. We have already examined the statements made in the written statement as well as the amendment sought for in the application for amendment of the written statement. After going through the written statement and the application for amendment of the written statement in depth, we do not find any such admission of the appellants which was sought to be withdrawn by way of amending the written statement.

As noted herein earlier, the case set up by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was that his parents had no money to purchase the suit property and it was the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 who paid the consideration money. In the written statement, this fact was denied and further it was asserted in the written statement that the suit property was in fact purchased by their parents and they had sufficient income of their own. In the application for amendment of written statement it was stated that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 did not have any income to pay the consideration money of the suit property and in fact the parents of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had sufficient income to pay the sale price. It was only pointed out in the application for amendment that after the death of their parents, the suit property was mutated in the joint names of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and the defendants in equal shares. Therefore, the question whether certain admissions made in the written statement were sought to be withdrawn is concerned, we find, as noted herein earlier, there was no admission in the written statement from which it could be said that by filing an application for amendment of the written statement, the appellants had sought to withdraw such admission. It is true in the original written statement, a statement has been made that it is the defendant No. 1/appellant No. 1 is the owner and in continuous possession of the suit property but in our view, the powers of the Court are wide enough to permit amendment of the written statement by incorporating an alternative plea of ownership in the application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, in our view, the facts stated in the application for amendment were in fact an elaboration of the defence case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement on the ground that in the event such amendment was allowed, it would take away some admissions made by the defendants/appellants in their written statement. That apart, in the case of M/s. Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., , this Court held that even there was some admissions in the evidence as well as in the written statement, it was still open to the parties to explain the same by way of filing an application for amendment of the written statement. That apart, mere delay of three years in filing the application for amendment of the written statement could not be a ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 so as to take away any accrued right."

Keeping the contours laid down in the above referred judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court, when the facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that undisputedly lease that had been entered by respondent herein namely petitioner in HRC No. 241/2013 with Sri Jagadguru Renukadi Panchacharya Free Boarding Samsthe, Sree Mahantara Mutt, was for a period of 25 years and same having been come to an end, notice has been issued by said Mutt on 13.10.2014. In fact, it is the plea of revision petitioners herein that subsequent to such notice issued by the Mutt, they have also attorned their tenancy in favour of Trust, since Mutt has assumed the ownership and now there is a contractual agreement between them and the Trust. Revision petitioners cannot be permitted to tender evidence before trial Court without there being any foundation laid or in other words, without there being plea available in their statement of objections. It is this specific plea, which they intend to raise in their statement of objections and as such, it cannot be held that said plea being either irrelevant or would have no bearing on the facts of present case. It is needless to state that, it is for the revision petitioners to prove the said plea before trial Court and as such, order passed by trial Court dismissing the application for amendment, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is hereby set aside.

Now turning my attention to the issue of application filed by revision petitioners to implead Mutt as a party to present proceedings, it would not detain this Court too long to hold that said Mutt is a necessary and proper party to the HRC proceedings, particularly in the backdrop of subsequent events having taken place namely, lease entered into between Mutt and petitioners in HRC No. 241/13, having come to an end and said Mutt having recognized the revision petitioners herein as its tenant, Mutt would be a necessary and proper party to the HRC proceedings and also in view of the fact that petitioners in HRC No. 241/2013 not disputing the fact that owner of building being Mutt. It is pleaded by them that representation has been submitted to the Mutt for extension of lease in their favour, it is for them to work out their remedies in accordance with law, insofar as renewal of lease is concerned. However, in the present proceedings what is required to be examined is whether respondent herein would be entitled to continue to prosecute the present eviction petitions against revision petitioners in the absence of they continuing to be owner of petition schedule premises, particularly when lease between the Mutt and petitioner in HRC No. 241/2013 come to an end by efflux of time, it would be necessary that Mutt which disputedly is the owner of plaint schedule premises to be on record to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, order dismissing the application to implead the Mutt cannot be sustained.

For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

"(i) Revision Petition Nos. 115/2014 and 116/2014, are hereby allowed.

(ii) Order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in HRC No. 241/2013, is hereby set aside.

(iii) Interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, is hereby allowed.

(iv) Order dated 13.11.2014 dismissing the interlocutory application filed by revision petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 CPC, is set aside since the proposed applicant is not notified. Said application is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to issue notice to them and implead them, as they would be necessary and proper party to the proceedings."

Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner seeks permission of the Court to deposit the rents. He is permitted to deposit the same before the trial Court in the pending proceedings.