RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. MANOHAR LAL KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that comes up for consideration in the present revision petition is as to if petitioner Rajinder Kumar could add new pleas inconsistent with the written statement or not

(2.) Before reverting to the said controversy, some relevant facts can conveniently be listed. Manohar Lal Khurana has filed a petition for eviction. The ground of eviction taken up was that Harish Kumar has sublet the demised property to Rajinder Kumar. The petitioner has filed written statement. It was denied that the property has been sublet. The defence taken up was that the property had been let to both the respondents in the eviction application, namely, Rajinder Kumar and Harish Kumar. The trial proceeded. During the pendency of the same, an application was filed seeking amendment of the written statement. The petitioner wanted to incorporate that in fact, the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Amir Chand to start a new business in the name and style of Satya General Store for the Joint Hindu Family. The petitioner and Manohar Lal Khurana are members of that Hindu Undivided Family. The rent was subsequently increased from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 450/- per month and again to Rs. 500/- per month in the year 1994. Both the them claimed that they were living with their father. It was asserted that the amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case.

(3.) The application as such was contested by the landlord. He denied that the property in dispute had been let to Amir Chand for business of Satya General Store. It was pointed out that when last opportunity was given for evidence, the petitioner did not produce the evidence and instead has filed the application for amendment in the written statement which would change the nature of the case.