J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 730 of 1989 as facts are common in both the cases.
(2.) THE Landlord Remal Dass Chhabra filed an ejectment application against this tenants on October 17, 1980 inter alia on the ground that the tenants were in arrears of rent with effect from January 1, 1979 till the filing of the ejectment application. The said application was contested on behalf of the tenants. A sum of Rs. 4300/- was tendered as arrears of rent on March 2, 1981, with effect from August 1, 1979 onwards. However, ultimately the Rent Controller vide his order dated April 5, 1984, passed eviction order against the tenants. Aggrieved with the same, the tenants filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Therein, they moved three applications, one for amendment of the written statement, second for amendment of the issues and the third for permission to lead additional evidence. The Learned Appellate Authority allowed the application for amendment of the written statement and consequently the application for leading additional evidence; but the application for amendment of the issues was declined. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed these two petitions in this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that similar application dated December 2, 1983 seeking amendment in the written statement was made before the Rent Controller which was dismissed by a detailed order dated January 3, 1984. According to the learned counsel, the said order was never challenged by the tenants and now they could not be allowed to challenge the same in appeal. In any case, argued the learned counsel, there was no ground for allowing the amendment in appeal particularly when the proceedings remained pending for about four years before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller vide his order dated January 3, 1984 dismissed the application seeking amendment on the grounds that : "The first reason is that so far as adjustment of rent through the price of purchase of cloth is concerned, that evidence has already come on the file. Respondents have already taken stand in their written statement that no amount of arrears of rent is due to be paid by them. In that very pleading, this evidence could be led and the same has already been led. Second reason is that the respondent in his statement has stated that amount of arrears of rent was always paid against receipts. Therefore, this admission cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by allowing this amendment application." Thus, argued the learned counsel, the view taken by the Appellate Authority in this care was wholly wrong and illegal and he has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and improperly.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to the Appellate Authority itself, it could not be said that the tenants were making out a new case by seeking amendment of the written statement in as much as the tenants had already taken the plea that no rent was due and by way of amendment in the written statement the tenants wanted to explain and clarify the said position by pleading that a part of the rent was being adjusted towards the price of the cloth purchased by the landlord. As observed earlier, the Rent Controller itself in his order dated January 3, 1984, has observed that as regard the price of the cloth, evidence has already come on the file and the tenants have already taken the stand in the written statement that no amount of arrears is due to be paid by them. That being so, the question of allowing amendment at the appellate stage as such did not arise. Whatever evidence was to be produced had already been produced and it was on the appreciation of evidence only on which the appeal was to be disposed of. Thus, the Appellate Authority has acted illegally and improperly in the exercise of his jurisdiction in allowing the amendment and as a consequence thereof allowing additional evidence.;