Ved Prakash Jindal vs Debasis Chandra

The petitioner, defendant in Title (Eviction) Suit No.43 of 2009, is aggrieved of order dated 02.08.2017 by which his application for amendment in

the written statement has been rejected.

Title (Eviction) Suit No.43 of 2009 was instituted by Debasis Chandra for a decree for eviction of the defendant from Schedule-A property and for

a decree for Rs.10,800/- as arrears of rent. In the suit the plaintiff has asserted himself as owner of the shop premises which the defendant was

using as godown. The plaintiff has further asserted that he has issued rent receipts to the tenant and the defendant in the written statement has

admitted tenancy in respect of Schedule-A property under the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded that during pendency of this suit when summons

were issued to him in Title (Partition) Suit No.327 of 2015 in which he has been arrayed as defendant no.13, he came to know that plaintiff in the

eviction suit is not the exclusive owner of the                        Schedule-A property. Â

Contending that in view of the new facts which have come to the notice of the defendant amendment in the written statement became necessary,

Mr. J.K. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Judge has erroneously dismissed the amendment application on the ground

of delay and that the defendant has admitted that he is a tenant under the plaintiff. Referring to the judgment in “M/s. Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass

Estate (Pvt.) Ltd.†reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to elaborate the defence taken by the petitioner

amendment in the written statement was necessary. Â

Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 defines the expression ‘landlord’ to include any person

who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account

or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the

rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. Title (Partition) Suit No.327 of 2015 has been instituted by Debasis

Chandra and others for a decree for partition by meets and bounds for 1/3rd share to the said Debasis Chandra who is plaintiff no.1 in the suit and

who is also the plaintiff in the eviction suit. There are other reliefs also sought by the plaintiffs in the partition suit. On the ground that the

Schedule-A property in Title (Eviction) Suit No.43 of 2009 is included in the suit schedule properties in Title (Partition) Suit No.327 of 2015, the

petitioner has sought amendment in paragraph no.5 of the written statement by incorporating a new paragraph 5(a). The petitioner now intends to

take a plea that the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the Schedule-A property and unless this property is allotted to him in the partition suit he

cannot maintain the eviction suit. This stand of the petitioner cannot be said to be an elaboration of his stand taken in the written statement.Â

Moreover, it is well-settled that an eviction suit can be maintained by a co-sharer and it is not necessary to implead all the co-sharers as party in an

eviction suit. In view of the inclusive definition of “landlord†under section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control

Act, 2000, even on the stand which the defendant intends to take through amendment in the written statement the plaintiff remains the landlord and

while so, the amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement is not necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. May be the

trial Judge has in the impugned order dated 02.08.2017 observed that the amendment application has been filed at a belated stage, it has to be kept in

mind that this observation has come from the trial Judge in view of the fact that after the parties led their evidence and the suit was posted for

arguments, on a plea that in Title (Partition) Suit No.327 of 2015 certain facts have been disclosed, the amendment application was filed. Â

In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.08.2017, the writ petition is dismissed. Â