- (1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. Sri Vineet Saran appears for the revisionist and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi for the respondents.
(2.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for eviction of the tenant-revisionists after termination of their tenan cy by a notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. A written statement was filed by the revisionist-insurance company, having its registered office at 25-Whites Road, Madras-14. After filing of the written statement at a subsequent stage, the aforesaid defendant came up with a prayer for amendment of the written statement to say that the Divisional Office at Kanpur was the real tenant and this Divisional Office should be made a party. This prayer for amendment of the written statement to in clude such amendment was refused and the prayer for impleadment of the Divisional Office was accordingly not accepted. This order has been impugned before this court. It is stated by Sri Saran that conduct of the business of the Head office and the Divisional Office are different and the plaintiffs are communicating every matter only to the Head Office to the utter detri ment of the Divisional Office to keep pace with the proceedings. While disposing of the prayer for amendment the trial court had observed that under Section 2 (9) of the Companies Act, the Head Office and the Branch Office would be deemed to be conducting the same business. The learned counsel submitted that this factual rinding may prejudicially affect the defendants at a subsequent stage and this finding was not necessary at this stage. It was contended by Sri N. C. Rajvan-shi that the plaintiffs have chosen to describe the Head Office as the tenant and served a notice under Section 106 T P. Act on them if at all it is proved that the Head Office was not the tenant, only the plaintiff would suffer and the defendant Head Office of the United Insurance Company would not be affected if such a finding is arrived at. He proposed to refer to the written state ment of the Head Office whereby an admis sion of the tenancy has been made. Sri Saran also equally relied on the counter- affidavit filed in paragraph 8 to say that there has been a virtual admission of tenancy of the Branch Office and not of the Head Office for the suit premises.
(3.) HAVING considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is the plain tiffs suit and if the plaintiffs have chosen to implead a party as a tenant and if that party takes up a plea that somebody else is the tenant, the court would decide it on the facts derived from the averments and evidence on record. The written statement, in my view, need not be amended to introduce any other party as a defendant. I do agree, however, with the view that the factual finding that the Head Office and the Branch Office are conducting the same business, was not an opinion to be expressed at this point of time. It can only be observed that the trial court should decide the issues between the exist ing parties without reference to this factual observation and it may not be read as a binding one against the defendant. The court must come to a finding on this point on the basis of the averments and evidence on record. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision application stand dis missed.;