- (1.) RESPONDENTS had filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of personal necessity as well as arrears of rent.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for permission to amend the written statement. The Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 22.7.2011 dismissed the application while observing as under: - "I have learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. Perusal of the written reply filed by the respondent clearly shows that he has mentioned the factum of rent application no. 32 dated 4.10.2002 in the opening para of the legal objection itself and in para no. 5 of the said reply. The respondent has admitted that he is bad pay master. Not only this, the respondent has already admitted in para no. 5 that he offered due rent but the applicant did not accepted the same with malafide intention. The plain reading of the reply itself clearly shows that the respondent was very much aware about the rent application no. 32 of 4.10.2002 and as such, it cannot be said that the respondent could not narrate the whole facts at the time of filing his reply. Even otherwise, in para no. 5, respondent himself has admitted that averments of the petition mentioned in para no. 5 and the proposed amendment sought by the respondent clearly goes to contrary to what has been admitted by him. Moreover, had there been any agreement dated 16.2.2007 in existence, the respondent was duty bound to mention and produce the same alongwith his reply also. Even though, Courts are liberal with regard to the amendment in written statements but this principal is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Apparently, the respondent has sought to amend the plea and admission he has already made in written reply, which is not permissible under the law. The respondent cannot be allowed to resile from the admission made in the written reply under the guise of amendment. Hence, taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case, I do not find merit in the application and same is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the merits of the case."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that amendment sought by the petitioner was very necessary for the just decision of the case. Moreover, at this stage, issues were yet to be framed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Sushil Kumar Jain versus Manoj Kumar and another, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 899' wherein it was held as under: - "That apart, a careful reading of the application for amendment of the written statement, we are of the view that the appellant seeks to only elaborate and clarify the earlier inadvertence and confusion made in his written statement. Even assuming that there was admission made by the appellant in his original written statement, then also, such admission can be explained by amendment of his written statement even by taking inconsistent pleas or substituting or altering his defence. 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 Vs. 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 .: In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the admitted fact that not even the issues have yet been framed, documents have not yet been filed, evidence has not yet been adduced, we are of the view that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has no manner of application as the trial has not yet commenced.";