- (1.) THE defendants ­ lessees have challenged the impugned orders dtd.6.4.2013 of the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Suratgarh, Dist. Sri Ganganagar in the eviction suits filed by the respondents ­ plaintiffs ­ Prithvi Raj and anr. on the basis of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act on 9.4.2005 terminating the lease.
(2.) THE learned trial Court by the impugned orders dtd.6.4.2013 has rejected the application for amendment of the written statement as well as the application for taking the notice dtd.22.8.2006 on record holding that the said eviction suit was at the final stage of arguments and evidence of both the parties had been concluded and at this stage, seeking amendment of the written statement on the ground that the plaintiffs had served another notice on the defendants ­ lessees on 22.8.2006 after the written statement had been filed by the defendants ­ petitioners in the said suit on 2.1.2006, therefore, the first notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property act dtd.9.4.2005 stood waived was not required to be taken on record. Mr. R.R.Nagori, Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Alkesh Agarwal vehemently submitted that once the second notice for demand of rent was served by the respondents ­ plaintiffs under the new Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 demanding the rent due of Rs.65,000/- and the defendants deposited the due rent against that also, the initial notice terminating the lease under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act stood waived and therefore, the defendants had already filed application in this regard before the learned trial Court on 23.11.2006 (Annex.R/1), which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dtd.20.4.2010 (Annex.R/2) holding that since new Rent Control Act, 2001 did not apply to Suratgarh within the State of Rajasthan, its population being below 50000, therefore, the notice subsequently served by the plaintiffs was not a valid notice and the application filed by the defendants for dismissing the suit was liable to be rejected. Mr. R.R. Nagori, therefore, submitted that the amendment sought by the said application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. would render the present suit filed by the plaintiffs infructuous since the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should be deemed to have been withdrawn by the plaintiffs ­ respondents and therefore, it was necessary for the learned trial Court to allow such amendment application. He relied upon the following case-laws in support of his submissions, which are discussed below..
(3.) IN the case of Pankaja V/s Yelappa reported in 2004 DNJ(SC) 826, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in case of substantial delay, to minimize the litigation, amendment should be allowed at any stage.;