Manmohan Sarin - (1.) The petitioner assails the order dated 8.5.1995 of Shri I.S. Mehta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing their application under Order VI, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code . for amendment of written statement. The facts in brief are:- (i) The respondent has filed a suit for possession and recovery of damagesmesne profits in respect of premises No. C-17, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, which were let out to the petitioner in the year 1973. The respondent claims to have terminated the tenancy of the petitioner vide a notice dated 15.11.1992. The petitioner in the written statement filed in March, 1993, averred termination of the tenancy was not in accordance with law. Further that the petitioner was in possession of the tenanted premises and the adjacent premises C-18, for the last 20 years under an oral agreement and the tenancy continued. The oral agreement to lease was a joint one and also for property No. C-18. This was to provide a banking hall on the ground floor and the basement, since individually premises No. C-17 and C-18 were unsuitable for the petitioner. The unilateral alleged termination by the respondent of tenancy of premises in suit was, pleaded as invalid apart from being against law. It was averred that from the very inception both the premises C-17 and C-18 were being used as one tenanted premises, though the rent was paid separately for both the premises to the respective landlords. (ii) The petitioner also averred in the written statement that the respondents and landlord of premises No. C-18 had orally agreed with the petitioner to lease out the premises with the petitioner having option to renew the lease after every 5 years with suitable enhancement in the rate of rent and this arrangement had been going on for last 20 years. The respondents' contention that petitioner was a monthly tenant was therefore refuted and it was stated that the existing agreement was continuing and the respondent had no right to terminate the same. (iii) The respondent after filing of the written statement in August 1994, sought amendment in the written statement to raise a preliminary objection with regard to the constitutional validity of Section 3C of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioners further sought to amend the written statement to state that no valid legal notice as required under the Transfer of Property Act had been served upon the petitioner. The Trial Court in view of the Apex Court having upheld constitutional validity of the Section 3C as well as the pica regarding the validity of termination notice being already there in the written statement, dismissed the applicatiun for amendment. (iv) The petitioner has now filed the second application under Order VI, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement. The amendments sought by the petitioners are in paras 5 and 6 of preliminary objection. Para No. 8 is sought to be added to preliminary objections. An amendment in para 3 of the written statement is also sought. The amendments sought by the petitioner are to the following effect:- (a) The amalgamation of Premises No. C-l 7 and premises No. C-J 8 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi by the respective landlords with prior permission from Delhi Development Authority, was one of the conditions to the petitioner being put in possession of the tenanted premises. There was only one entrance through premises No. C-l 7 to the tenanted premises. The petitioners seek to supplement the plea that the unilateral termination of the tenancy of the suit premises is illegal and not enforceable. (b) The second amendment sought js that the tenancy originally created in 1973 was renewed w.e.f. 1.6.1983 for a period of 10 years with the option to increase the rent by 25% after completion of first five years of the lease and that the renewed tenancy is continued upto 1993. Consequential changes based on the aforesaid amendments are sought to be made as observed earlier in paras 5 and 6 of the preliminary objection. Para 8 of preliminary objection is also sought to be added. The consequential changes are also .sought to be made in paras 2 and 3 of the written statement
(2.) The petitioner justifies the amendments sought on the ground that few years ago there was a fire in its zonal office and some of the record was burnt and the partially burnt record was shifted to various offices. Written statement was filed in the absence of complete facts, correspondence and documents, which were not traceable at that time. It is submitted that the petitioner in fact has been able to locate some of the records found in partially burnt condition. The records now traced show that the premises Nos. C-17 and C-18 were amalgamated into one by prior permission from DDA.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid amendments do not in any manner change the nature of the case or introduce any inconsistent plea. The said amendments only seek to explain and clarify the original cause of action. These amendments are necessary for determining the matter in controversy.;