RAJ NARAIN AGGARWAL Vs. BAIJ NATH KHANNA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJ NARAIN AGGARWAL
BAIJ NATH KHANNA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The single question raised in this petition by the tenant Raj Narain Aggarwal is whether the amendment of the written statement was wrongly refused by the Additional Rent Controller.
(2.)These are the facts. The respondent landlord, Baij Nath Khanna, brought a petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by him for occupation as a residence for himself and for members of the family dependent on him under Section 14 (l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the Act'). The tenant is contesting the petition on several grounds. One of the grounds of defence in the written statement is that the landlord is not the owner of premises.
(3.)After the case had been set down for the evidence of the landlord, an application was made by the tenant on 31-3-1982 under Order VI Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code praying that he may be allowed to amend the written statement so as to incorporate the plea that the landlord Baij Nath Khanna is "at the most a benamidar and not the real owner or co-owner" of the property in question. In the amendment application it was said that in respect of the sale deed date 20-11-1947 of the property in dispute the entire sale consideration was paid by the landlord's brother Amir Chand Khanna, and not by Baij Nath Khanna. Baij Nath Khanna's name was merely added out of affection by Amir Chand Khanna and that Amir Chand Khanna was the sole and the exclusive owner of the property in suit. The tenant said that in the year 1970 when Amir Chand Khanna directed him to pay rent to Baij Nath Khanna as "his representative, agent or nominee" that he started paying rent to him. The sub- stance of the amendment is that the tenant wants to set up the plea that the landlord Baij Nath Khanna is merely a benarnidar and not the real owner or co-owner of the property.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.