- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This petition is directed against judgment and order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad, by which amendment application moved by the Petitioner tenant has been rejected.
(3.) At the time of admission, the following interim order was granted in this case on 27.8.2010: Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Some Narayan Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-tenant has submitted that by the impugned order the amendment sought by the Petitioner in paragraph Nos. 35,36 and 38 of the written statement has been illegally disallowed and submits that the defence taken by the Petitioner-tenant in his written statement in the aforesaid paragraphs was sought to be amended by minor amendments and further that in paragraph 38 of the written statement it had been stated that after the death of Harish Chandra @ Sadhu the Petitioner-tenant could not pay the rent since it was not clear as to whether the widow of Harish Chandra or the minor daughter of Harish Chandra were entitled to receive the rent. According to him the amendment is an explanation of the defence taken by the Petitioner in his written statement and does not amount to change his case at a subsequent stage. Sri Jain has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and Anr.,2009 SCFBRC 19 and places reliance on paragraphs 10 to 13. Paragraphs 10 to 13 are quoted hereunder: 10. At this stage, we may remind ourselves that law is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action (See Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr., 2006 AIR(SC) 2832). 11. Similar view has also been expressed in Usha Balashaheb Swami and Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 1663. It is equally well settled that in the case of an amendment of a written statement, the Courts would be more liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed. 12. Keeping these principles in mind, let us now take up the question raised before us by the learned Counsel for the parties. As stated herein earlier, the admission made by a Defendant in his written statement can be explained by filing the application for amendment of the same. This principle has been settled by this Court in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. K. Jyoti Sahay, 1983 AIR(SC) 462, while considering this issue, held that the admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained. It was observed in paragraph 3 of the said decision as follows: "An admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away. Therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment, an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn...." 13. In view of our discussions made herein-above and applying the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are therefore of the view that the High Court as well as the learned Rent Controller had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not allowing the application for amendment of the written statement of the Appellant. In view of the aforesaid submission, prima facie the Petitioner has made out a case which requires consideration after exchange of affidavits. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, till the next date of listing further proceedings in Rent Appeal No. 91 of 2006, 'Awadh Bihari Lal v. Vijay Chandra Gupta and Anr. pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Allahabad, shall remain stayed.;